Mozilla 0.8 Released!Thursday February 15th, 2001mozilla.org today released the Mozilla 0.8 Milestone. Builds can be found on mozilla.org's ftp site, and release notes are available at the releases page. First, I wanted to say that I got the first comment. Also, it looks like a really cool milestone for us. A release that is well on the way to 1.0! Is the Mozilla 0.8 found in pub/releases/mozilla-0.8 (2001021508) the final 0.8 version? Because I don't see any release notes stating that 0.8 has been released yet... More accurately, it's probably a few days behind the current nightlies. The reason for this is because of a code freeze that occures in the days before a milestone is released, and only a few select bug fixes goes in while the main code trunk continues on without those restrictions. Off the top of my head I recall at least one bug fix that didn't went into Mozilla 0.7 that is in the currently nightlies. Alex You mean Mozilla 0.8? #26 Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks cool!by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu> Friday February 16th, 2001 1:47 PM oops, my mistake. It's Mozilla 0.8. Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing it out. Alex #16 yes but 0.8 is more stable than nightlies...by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org> Friday February 16th, 2001 2:36 AM this is the goal of every Milestone, as far as i understand it. being more stable than nightlies. nightlies are really for hardcore testers. Milestones are for the average surfer. correct me people if i'm wrong. -- Hervé - <http://mozillazine-fr.org/> I think I'm pretty much an "average surfer" but I still like to use nightlies because _usually_ they are as realiable and fast as milestones and sometimes they have some new cool things. #27 Re: yes but 0.8 is more stable than nightlies...by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu> Friday February 16th, 2001 1:49 PM Yes and no. Initially a recent milestone is more stable than the nightlies, but after a while the nightlies will surpass the milestone in stability, performance, etc. Despite the useful disclaimer that nightly builds are intended for "hard-core" testers, they are quite stable and very useable ... most of the time :) Alex Don't forget to check out the Links Panel at <http://segment7.net/mozilla/links/links.html> It works just fine with Mozilla nightlies and .8! I was hoping this would have supported the LINK tag, see: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2800> Yes, 38 votes show how many of us have been waiting and waiting for this. Meanwhile, while a patch has been awaiting review since before Netscape 6 branched off. Who do we have to bribe to get the LINK patch reviewed? :) Change themes. The View menu doesn't work. Read the release notes, this is a known issue and there is a work around. Here is where bugs are reported: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org> I am following the work on Mozilla closely and want to congratulate everybody involved for their commitment. Mozilla is a great piece of software and it gets better by the day. Keep up the good work :-)) Just wondering if anyone can spell out how the daily builds differ from the milestones. Are they compiled differently? Is 0.8 essentially just the 20010215 build? Thanks! Josh - mp3.com/bluevitriol #9 Re: How different than the dailies is this?by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu> Thursday February 15th, 2001 10:28 PM Actually, Mozilla 0.7 is about a week behind the nightly builds. The main development trunk goes through a freeze where only a few select bug fixes are allowed, normally to fix recent regressions and some "polish" that normally doesn't go into a nightly build. After a few days of this, a branch of the code is created. The main trunk opens up again to continue work on the next version (Mozilla 0.9 in this case). The branch then gets more polish and only very essential bug fixes that won't cause any possible stability problems and after a few this, it is released as a new milestone (Mozilla 0.8). Alex #11 Re: How different than the dailies is this?by damian <daemonc@netscape.net> Thursday February 15th, 2001 10:33 PM Generally, the daily builds from mozilla.org have all the debugging code compiled in, which the milestones do not. Debugging stuff adds a small amount of bloat, so the milestones should be slightly smaller/ faster. Also the milestones have been code-frozen and thouroghly tested for about a week, so should contain less bugs and regressions than the rapidly changing daily trunk builds. The main window doesn't refresh after I click on the "What's Related" link. I know I should go to Bugzilla, but I am not going to. Someone can confirm it and report it. XP (definitely not related to Windows XP) #15 Re: Related site not shown after clickingby basic <_basic@yahoo.com> Friday February 16th, 2001 2:15 AM I think this is a known issue That is a known bug, but since apparently nobody cares about what's related anyway, it's a very low priority bug... or you can find one of your friends to fix it :-) Cheers, Fabian This has been fixed on the trunk, I think. It's a known regression. No big deal. Apparently it works on Mac. Could someone try clicking on the link below in Mozilla and tell me what you see? <news://news.mozilla.org/3…05.7971EF63%40clarence.de> Since when has Mozilla been displaying newsgroup posting in the browser window? I think it is cool, but is there any downside to this? Like security issues? You should ask this kind of question in netscape.public.mozilla.security. Someone there might know. One potential security problem I see is that the linked article would run with the security settings of your browser, not your mail/news viewer. For example it might execute the JS in HTML attachments even if you had turned JS off for mail/news. That message DOES have JavaScript in it. It doesn't run for me. Congratulations with another great release. I just wanted to note that the perfprmance on a Pentium 60 with 96 RAM is _very_ acceptable, and yes i'm talking about the UI :) I've noticed that the UI performance tends to be better on Windows, so good news for you M$ lovers out there ;) Anyway, great work people. NT I tried Moz 0.8 on a completely new computer at uni today (it had 128MB RAM, BTW) and I found it to be fast as lightning. However, I'm now using the same Mozilla 0.8 on an old Pentium 90 MHz which does have a decent amount of RAM (40MB, to be exact). Even with only Navigator + PSM installed, Moz is still too slow for everyday use on this ol' Win95 box. But I guess that eventually (when the version number is 1.0 or sooner) this great browser will not have these monster system requirements anymore, and will not at least run any slower than any other Win9x app on the same machine (or at least NS4.x). Then I can finally enjoy Mozilla on all of my computers, not just the ones with gigabytes of RAM. #30 Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pentiumsby Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net> Saturday February 17th, 2001 5:59 AM Actually -anyone correct me if i'm wrong- i dont think you'll see such a significant decrease in memory usage even in the 1.0 release. Best thing to do is just buy some old computer from somewhere (presuming that P90 is yours) take out the simms and add them to the P90.. it really doesnt make sense on running mozilla on a computer that'll have to swap to the HD. For comps with little RAM i'd sugguest Opera, its fast and lean, and the banner is _far_ less annoying than any you'd come across on a website. Seriously, for the mail and news part there are efforts to speedup and decrease memory usage with the thread pane display. There are also efforts to balance speed and memory usage of cache. I'm still watching lots of performance related bugs in bugzilla that are being worked on. I agree with you though, that currently opera is better for low mem systems. Basic PS: Someone could also create a special chrome that would use less resource (less features) for low memory systems (and Mac). Seriously, for the mail and news part there are efforts to speedup and decrease memory usage with the thread pane display. There are also efforts to balance speed and memory usage of cache. I'm still watching lots of performance related bugs in bugzilla that are being worked on. I agree with you though, that currently opera is better for low mem systems. Basic PS: Someone could also create a special chrome that would use less resource (less features) for low memory systems (and Mac). #34 Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pentiumsby arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl> Saturday February 17th, 2001 8:10 AM I think you have to look at it in this way: Mozilla is the browser of the future, not of the past (like NS4.xx). Therefore, it requires hardware of the future (like at least 128 megs of RAM), not hardware of the past (anything below 300Mhz and 128 megs of ram) Likewise, you're not running win2k on your P90 right? You stick to win95 because it can't handle the newer OS'ses. Why would the browser be any different? #35 Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pentiumsby arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl> Saturday February 17th, 2001 8:13 AM I think you have to look at it in this way: Mozilla is the browser of the future, not of the past (like NS4.xx). Therefore, it requires hardware of the future (like at least 128 megs of RAM), not hardware of the past (anything below 300Mhz and 128 megs of ram) Likewise, you're not running win2k on your P90 right? You stick to win95 because it can't handle the newer OS'ses. Why would the browser be any different? #40 Re: Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pentiumsby avisdurgan Saturday February 17th, 2001 10:37 AM > You stick to win95 because it can't handle the newer OS'ses. Why would the browser be any different? Well, you may say that. But if I were to accept that, then I also have to accept MSIE as my primary browser on this machine (since MSIE5 runs fairly well on my P90). Do you really think that is fair? :) #41 Re: Re: Re: Great, but still too slow on older Penby garfieldbond Saturday February 17th, 2001 12:52 PM Well, maybe after 1.0 someone can port the Mozilla Embedded version so that it does the same things but very non-system intensive. I have a 200 mhz pentium pro with 128 megs of ram and it runs ok. It is perfectly fine when I am using it by itself or with a few other low memory programs but once i start to use other things (staroffice, napster, etc.) it slows down. The most annoying part is mozilla causes my music to sometimes stop for a second then come back in. It runs great on faster computers though. I would like to see however the embedded version worked on a little more so it could be used on older computers. It is a little buggy now and you can\'t really do much with it. googleplex #54 Re: Re: Re: Great, but still too slow on older Penby arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl> Sunday February 18th, 2001 5:26 PM Well you could use NS4.xx..... or Opera perhaps (have to admit, I never tried that one). Adding more memory will help btw, it's not so much the processor that's keeping things slow, its the memory. Before I got my new Athlon 1200 w/ 512 megs of RAM I was doomed to run Win2000 on a P1-225 with 80 megs of RAM. Believe me, it was not fun :(. It runs just soo much better on 128MB even if the processor is not that much faster. Try getting rid of IE and see if Mozilla (or any other apps) is any faster. When I installed IE4, Win95 slowed to a crawl. #71 Re: Win32 has been left in the dustby damian <daemonc@netscape.net> Wednesday February 21st, 2001 2:04 AM I've been running Mozilla on Linux since... M10 (was it really that long ago?) At M18 it reached the threshhold of usuability. At 0.7 it was as fast as IE 5 on Windows, and it became my daily browser. At 0.8 it was absolutely flying on my machine, and memory use was lower than ever. I have a AMD 450 w/ 64 MB RAM, btw. I could not understand the complaints about Mozilla being slow (well, on old machines < 200 MHz I would understand.) Then I decided to try Mozilla 0.8 on Windows. Now I see why everyone was whining. You all must run Windows! Page rendering is at least 5 times slower on Windows than on Linux. I'm not sure if there are outstanding performance bugs in the Win32 builds, or if Win32 just isn't getting the amount of developers attention as Linux, or if this is just evidence of the fundamental inferiority of the Windows platform. In any case, I feel sorry for those of you that are Linux impaired. Hmm, almost everyone I know with Linux uses NN4.7 cause Mozilla is a way slower. And even the ones with Windows uses NN4.7 or other programs for mail... (But I still believe in Mozilla :) BTW - if your Linux Mozilla runs quicker than W32 IE, believe me - I'm not the only one who'd like to see that. #74 Re: Re: Re: Win32 has been left in the dustby damian <daemonc@netscape.net> Wednesday February 21st, 2001 2:48 PM On very basic pages, Netscape 4.6 may be faster, but for pages with complex tables and lots of graphics, Mozilla 0.8 is definitely faster than Netscape, seems faster than IE 5.0 running on the same machine. I'm going to do a time test, and I'll let you know the results. #29 off topic -- cpu usage on downloadsby oopsilon <mozillazine.20.oopsilon@spamgourmet.com> Saturday February 17th, 2001 12:19 AM Congrats to all developers on such an awesome project from a lowly EE undergrad :p This is quite off topic, but I noticed that when I'm downloading files with Mozilla builds over the past few months my cpu temperature rises to 50+ degrees celcius -- as hot as when I'm running cpu-intensive games -- during the download. As a comparison, using Netscape 4.76 during a download hardly increases the cpu usage +1 degree celcius. Is there some feature that speeds up downloads (and eats up lots more cpu)? Other than the cpu temp/usage annoyance, I'm very satisfied with the latest builds. Keep up the good work! Sherman #36 Re: off topic -- cpu usage on downloadsby arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl> Saturday February 17th, 2001 8:17 AM I think there was a bug about a month ago which caused Mozilla to hog up 100% CPU when FTP'ing... but that should've been fixed long ago by now... Can't think of anything else that might be causing this... That's bug 65220 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65220>. The is fix ready, but not checked in yet. Sorry, the link must be <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65220> #45 Re: Re: off topic -- cpu usage on downloadsby oopsilon <mozillazine.20.oopsilon@spamgourmet.com> Saturday February 17th, 2001 4:22 PM Already fixed? Can't wait to see this show up in the nightlies. Thanks! I was wondering. I'm aware Moz has some way of applying a stylesheet to all the pages you view.. but is there some way to turn Flash movies on low quality and to turn off "loop"? No, that would have to be done by Macromedia as part of the plugin. #37 Re: Re: Wondering...by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net> Saturday February 17th, 2001 9:30 AM Darn, ah well.. thanx anyway If I already download sun\'s Java 1.3 and install the plugin. Do you have to download the java plugin again for Mozilla 0.8? Thank you. No, you don't need to download it again. Just copy "javasoft\jre\1.x.x\bin\NP*.*" into "mozilla 0.8\plugins". (There should be five files). Start mozilla, and try java.sun.com. or if you run Linux and have already installed the plugin it will be registered and work without you doing anything. Hi this is the same that I see in the windows nightlies and M 0.8 I do a simple uninstall over the control pannel, install the new and the needed files are in the plugin folder. If I already download sun\'s Java 1.3 and install the plugin. Do you have to download the java plugin again for Mozilla 0.8? Thank you. Anyone have error starting the install? I'm getting uninstall.exe file is linked to missing export shell32.dll? thanks I had the same problem running Windows ME with 98lite IV, (so I can blast away all of IE) It looks that Mozilla recognise an old installed mozilla but couldn´t uninstall it. I tried to uninstall in Windows controllpanel and by hand file by file but still there was something left. Then of other reason I cleaned my harddisk and made a new installation of windows and then the installation of Mozilla 0.8 worked. I had this problem as well on another computer running Win98. I'm not quite sure of the problem but I'll check ASAP to try and remember what I did to fix it. I do recall searching the computer for anything with "mozilla" in the filename and deleting everything I found, but there may have been something else too. I know I did some similar registry editing but I don't recommend that and I don't think it made a difference. It will be a few days but I'll see what I can do. I know that bug. A previous setup run dumped a folder c:\temp\ns_temp (or whereever your temp is). Delete the folder manually and setup should run without problems. I did not check Bugzilla for this by now. Any volunteers? :) <a href="<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69335>"> LINK </a> Hi Would one of you nice persons of higher abilities form planet Mozilly turn on the Mathml-SVG in M 0.8, please. steve mathML and SVG enabled builds as well as builds on some of the more exotic platforms are contributed by folks interested in building with those features. If you know of someone willing to submit those builds please point them to the ports page where they can find instructions on submitting builds. Thanks --Asa Accoriding to this mozilla.org page <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/> " In the meantime, you can download nightly builds of mozilla with MathML and SVG support from Jeremy Baker's site (windows only). " You can use this source: <http://jerbaker.dhs.org/mozilla/> ... ... at least if you have an Windows-System I'd like to mention that stability has really been improved. Before 0.8 I had lot of "infinite loop detected" or crashes. Now everything runs fine. I am waiting for 1.0 and I am sure not to be disappointed. Congrats! #60 Open back in new windowby jonde <joona.nuutinen@pp.inet.fi> Monday February 19th, 2001 10:32 AM Yes I know this is offtopic and a crazy idea, but why not? It sounds stupid, but sometimes it could be handy. Why shouldn't this kind of new feature be available? Sometimes I click a link, and want to open the previous page also in another window. So my propotion is to be able to open links listed in back in a new window. What do you think? File a bug. I'd suggest making it so that when you held ctrl and selected back it opened in a new window, much like when you click a link. Or for those of us with middle mouse buttons, clicking on that. Been thinking of filing an RFE myself for middle clicking on links in the toolbar. So often I want to fire a new window with one of my most used sites. Does a bug like this exist? This should normally go into news.mozilla.wish (or something similar) but Earthlink's NGs are down. Anyway, how difficult would it be to add "Email this picture" menu item when right clicking on an image? Is this someting handled by XUL? #73 Re: Won't even start on WinNTby janbenes <janbenes@usa.net> Wednesday February 21st, 2001 1:56 PM After installing M0.8 I have got splash screen for few seconds, then it closed and - nothing. Removing profile, reinstallation and restart does not help. Chrome is original. #75 Re: Re: Won't even start on WinNTby arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl> Wednesday February 21st, 2001 4:43 PM Did you also remove the files mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat from your Windows directory? #77 Re: Won't even start on WinNTby janbenes <janbenes@usa.net> Thursday February 22nd, 2001 10:57 AM Deleted and still does not start. M 0.7 starts fine. Jan I went back and used Netscape 4.08. Haven't used it in ages, but man, looking at that makes you realize how far Mozilla has come! One things, though, I couldn't find a bug on this -- my memory cache hasn't ever worked. Every time I go back or forward, my modem lights up. In IE, I go back and forward with no network action at all. Other than that, Mozilla is looking great! I don't know all that much about coding myself, but I think that it would be interesting if someone were to create an optional preloader for Mozilla that ran when you started up Windows that loaded up some of the, uh, core files and stuff so that there wouldn't be so much of a wait every time you load Moz for the first time (not that it's the WORST wait in the world, I'm just saying there is room for improvement still, right?) That request is bug 36283. oh... I just read about that... I'm glad to see it's being worked on (I hope?) I just have one little beef with that, though, I hope when they create a preloader for the Win32 systems, they stick the link inside the Startup directory, and not in the registry (the Windows registry is the greatest abomination known to man), because it's a real pain in the ass to clean up defunct references in there when faulty programs don't clean up after themselves (and slow my 'puter to a crawl eventually) This is cool. #83 Java Plugin Installationby gsarwar <gsarwar@technologist.com> Wednesday February 28th, 2001 1:04 PM First time, I tried to install Java plugin on linux for mozilla0.8, it didn't work. I've found a workaround and want to share if somebody else is facing the same problem: Let me tell you what I did. I went to java.sun.com, it asked me to download javaplugin, yes and I select Java Plugin for linux. It started installing and then it said "Java Plugin Installation Successful". I closed mozilla and opened it again, browsed java.sun.com, it again prompted for the plugin. What is wrong? I observed that it created a dir java2 in plugins dir. I just had to create a symlink: ln -s /usr/local/mozilla08/mozilla/plugins/java2/plugin/i386/ns600/libjavaplugin_oji.so /usr/local/mozilla08/mozilla/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so Now, when I restart the browser and viisted java.sun.com, it worked. Good Luck! |
|