MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.1 Beta Released

Monday July 22nd, 2002

Asa Dotzler writes: "It's here! Mozilla 1.1 Beta. New to this release are full-screen mode for Linux, BiDi Hebrew improvements, Arabic shaping improvements for Linux, and significant improvements to Venkman, the best cross-platform JavaScript debugger on the planet. Get your binaries and release notes at http://www.mozilla.org/releases/. And if you're confused about all these alpha and beta releases (and what ever happened to that 1.0 branch?) then take a look at the nice picture available at the Mozilla Development Roadmap."


#1 Cool

by techn9ne

Monday July 22nd, 2002 8:18 PM

Reply to this message

Every release keeps getting better and better. I've been using nightlies and its nice to see some of the features like tab button catching up into the releases.

#22 It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by penang

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 6:44 AM

Reply to this message

I've tried it.

It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

Will Mozilla ever be as snappy as Opera ?

#31 Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 9:59 AM

Reply to this message

Will Opera ever be as standards compliant and feature-rich as Mozilla and still be snappy....?

#67 where's the humor rating?

by goodwatast

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 10:31 PM

Reply to this message

I'd give you a 5 for funny, arnoudb.

And as for the speed, it's pretty damn fast on win2k for me...

#60 Opera

by techn9ne

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 6:46 PM

Reply to this message

Have you ever tried to view a web site that uses javascript w/ opera ??

#113 Re: Opera

by roman

Friday July 26th, 2002 10:09 PM

Reply to this message

I have, and it worked fine. And Opera is really fast. Not talking about rendering because rendering in Mozilla is fast enough. I'm talking about the GUI's speed. It's very slow in Mozilla. Give me a link to a site that you think Opera would have a problem with, and I will try it.

#2 Righteous

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday July 22nd, 2002 8:27 PM

Reply to this message

Good to see Mozilla finally coming into its own. Woohoo! Onwards towards 2.0!

#3 Question

by mesostinky

Monday July 22nd, 2002 10:26 PM

Reply to this message

How do you change the right click behavior so that is "open in new tab" is above "open in new window". I'll recompile or whatever, but that's one thing I really didn't like in the change from 1.0 to 1.1. Thanks.

#5 Re: Question

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday July 22nd, 2002 10:49 PM

Reply to this message

In your Mozilla application directory, you'll find a directory called 'chrome'. Inside that will be a file called 'comm.jar'. Unzip 'comm.jar' to a temporary location, preserving its directory structure (if neccessary, change the extension to 'zip' and use a standard zip utility). You'll find a directory called 'content' in the location where you unzipped the file. Open it up and go into its 'communicator' subdirectory. There you'll find a file called 'contentAreaContextOverlay.xul'. Open it in a text editor. Scroll down until you see these eight lines (they're quite near the top):

<menuitem id="context-openlink"

label="&openLinkCmd.label;"

accesskey="&openLinkCmd.accesskey;"

oncommand="gContextMenu.openLink();"/>

<menuitem id="context-openlinkintab"

label="&openLinkCmdInTab.label;"

accesskey="&openLinkCmdInTab.accesskey;"

oncommand="gContextMenu.openLinkInTab();"/>

(The blank lines won't be there; I'm trying to stop the MZ comment code from removing my line breaks.)

Using your finely honed cut 'n' paste skills, reorder the lines to match this (except without the blank lines):

<menuitem id="context-openlinkintab"

label="&openLinkCmdInTab.label;"

accesskey="&openLinkCmdInTab.accesskey;"

oncommand="gContextMenu.openLinkInTab();"/>

<menuitem id="context-openlink"

label="&openLinkCmd.label;"

accesskey="&openLinkCmd.accesskey;"

oncommand="gContextMenu.openLink();"/>

Save your changes and close the file. Now, zip up the 'content' directory and call it 'comm.jar'. Move it to the 'chrome' directory in your Mozilla application directory, overwriting the old file.

Then cross your fingers and test it. No need to recompile.

Alex

#19 Re: Re: k-meleon, please make it easier to test be

by wilsonae <Tony.Wilson@nc3a.nato.int>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 3:16 AM

Reply to this message

Won't this get overwritten when a new nightly is installed?

Tony.

#44 Yes

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:16 PM

Reply to this message

"Won't this get overwritten when a new nightly is installed?"

Yes, probably.

Alex

#52 Re: Re: Question

by mesostinky

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 1:46 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks for replying! I'll give it a whirl.

#21 Re: Question

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 6:10 AM

Reply to this message

Or why don't you just set middle button to be open in new tab and save yourself all the hassle!

#51 Re: Re: Question

by mesostinky

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 1:45 PM

Reply to this message

I do on my desktop, but for my laptop I don't have a scroll wheel.

#4 1.0 branch?

by phredx

Monday July 22nd, 2002 10:27 PM

Reply to this message

"(and what ever happened to that 1.0 branch?)"

unfortunately, no new detailed information about the 1.0 branch is available at the roadmap. the 1.0 branch information hasn't changed since 1.0 was released. was there a reason 1.0.1 was declared "almost done", recently, other than to tantalize people who actually have decided to switch to Moz as their daily desktop browser?

#10 Re: 1.0 branch?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday July 22nd, 2002 11:23 PM

Reply to this message

You want 1.1beta. It's better. Don't wait on that tired old 1.0 branch ;-)

--Asa

#58 Re: 1.0 branch?

by Phelk

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 5:23 PM

Reply to this message

Asa

I appreciate that you work on the development branch but many of us want to keep things nice and stable. That's why there is a stable branch and we are the ones who represent the masses.

Cheers, Phelk

#62 Re: Re: 1.0 branch?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 6:56 PM

Reply to this message

1.1 will be more stable than 1.0 :-) And I don't have the data yet but I suspect that 1.1b is also more stable than 1.0.

--Asa

#71 Re: Re: Re: 1.0 branch?

by smithberry <david.smith@crocodile-clips.com>

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 2:43 AM

Reply to this message

I have no doubt 1.1 will be more stable as a browser, but for those of us developing third party applications on top of the Mozilla code base, stability of interfaces, etc is of more pressing importance. Each new release we pick up means several weeks work integration and testing. We will probably stick to the 1.0 branch for a while yet, and I'm waiting with interest for more info on 1.0.1 to appear.

#118 Re: Re: Re: Re: 1.0 branch?

by rafo

Thursday August 1st, 2002 2:42 AM

Reply to this message

1.0.1 is here, in fact I am typing this very message with it. It is bundled with Red Hat 7.4 beta which became accessible for download recently. Help->AboutMozilla says "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020724", but Help->ReleaseNotes just brings up <<http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0/>>.

#6 Which way to go then....

by ldpercy

Monday July 22nd, 2002 10:50 PM

Reply to this message

...stick with the 1.0 branch (ie wait for 1.0.1), or dive in head first and install 1.1Beta? Recommendations?

#7 Re: Which way to go then....

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday July 22nd, 2002 10:55 PM

Reply to this message

Try 1.1 Beta. You know you want to.

Alex

#8 Re: Which way to go then....

by timothyr <tim@richardson.net>

Monday July 22nd, 2002 11:05 PM

Reply to this message

The 1.1 alpha was the most stable 'milestone' release I have ever used, so I have confidence the beta will be fine.

#20 1.1beta, but...

by leafdigital

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 4:21 AM

Reply to this message

Use the beta versions if you want the best program available.

But consider one thing first: in the (very unlikely but theoretically possible) event that your browser utterly ph00ks up and you have to reinstall, does it matter?

If you just use it as a browser, the answer is almost certainly no, provided you make a backup of your bookmarks every now and then. But if you use it as a mail client too, obviously you'll need to backup mail as well and you might want to be more cautious. Mind, you probably should do that even if using the releases :)

1.1beta is definitely better than 1.0 but it hasn't been as widely tested, so...

I download nightlies personally but I only use Mozilla for browsing (and I do have a, somewhat out of date, bookmarks backup, but my bookmarks suck anyhow). If I used it for email I might be a bit less cavalier.

-sam

#79 Re: 1.1beta, but...

by toom

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 1:07 PM

Reply to this message

Or... Setup your personal IMAP server (or use free emails with IMAP or so) and use Mozilla only as e-Mail reader, not as an e-Mail storage. Then you are safe even with nightlies not counting that you can change your e-Mail reader every day ;-)

#9 new program icons!!!!

by wtmcgee

Monday July 22nd, 2002 11:12 PM

Reply to this message

new icons! need i say more?

#11 Re: new program icons!!!!

by ruudd

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:23 AM

Reply to this message

yeah, the new mozilla.exe icon is cool, but I don't like the new window icon (looks to much as netscape navigator) why is the lizard not in that icon?

#48 I don't get it at all...

by Radiowriter

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 1:10 PM

Reply to this message

The installer for the beta release is 2002072104! This is an older build than I've been using and it does NOT include the new icons. I was waiting for the beta, but I guess I'll just d/l a new nightly. I was very happy with 2002072208. I don't get it.

#49 Re: I don't get it at all...

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 1:20 PM

Reply to this message

#50 Re: I don't get it at all...

by Radiowriter

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 1:26 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks, Alex...

Just the same I d/l'ed 2002072308 and will use IT until it all gets straightened out. Is that old build (save for the addition of new icons) going to be the one released for beta? I'm so confused. Been downloading nightlies for months. Suppose I could just continue that way. But I thought I should get back to my life (if it's still there) at some point.

#55 i gotta say i agree

by joschi

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 4:40 PM

Reply to this message

i like the new launcher icon, but the problem is that there are now _three_ icons associated with navigator: the red moz head launcher icon, the ship wheel ns4.x icon that is now in the task bar, and the blue M button that is in the lower right "component bar" ... of the three i think the blue M is most aesthetically appealing, the red head is the "coolest" ... and i just dont like the old navigator wheel at all....

does anyone know the tracking bug numbers for these icons?

#57 i gotta say i agree

by joschi

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 4:40 PM

Reply to this message

make that "lower left" for the component bar icon

#98 icons should be part of theme

by jilles

Friday July 26th, 2002 12:47 AM

Reply to this message

The icons should be part of the theme, the same applies for the splash screen. Both are configurable, people will want to configure them and people will want them to match whatever theme they specified.

Now, as you have observed, the icons used on the exterior are inconsistent with the icons used on the statusbar and the icon used for launching mozilla.

#56 i gotta say i agree

by joschi

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 4:40 PM

Reply to this message

i like the new launcher icon, but the problem is that there are now _three_ icons associated with navigator: the red moz head launcher icon, the ship wheel ns4.x icon that is now in the task bar, and the blue M button that is in the lower right "component bar" ... of the three i think the blue M is most aesthetically appealing, the red head is the "coolest" ... and i just dont like the old navigator wheel at all....

does anyone know the tracking bug numbers for these icons?

#12 Re: new program icons!!!!

by Alastor <rowanmulder@zonnet.nl>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:28 AM

Reply to this message

I'm using Windows XP Home Edition (dutch) and Mozilla 1.1b (build 2002072104, the full installer on mozilla.org).

But I don't see any distinctive icons for apps? Just the blue gecko.

#13 Re: Re: new program icons!!!!

by Alastor <rowanmulder@zonnet.nl>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:38 AM

Reply to this message

Anyone can confirm that the talkback enabled Full Installer .exe is missing the distinctive icons? I've searched for the "\chrome\icons" dir and it is not there (it is in the Zip file).

#16 Additional Information

by Alastor <rowanmulder@zonnet.nl>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:57 AM

Reply to this message

<http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…-win32-1.1b-installer.exe> Build ID: 2002072104

<http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…a-win32-1.1b-talkback.zip> Build ID: 2002072204

Notice: The Zip-File was created a day later than the full installer .exe. This seems to be the cause that it is missing the new icons for mozilla.exe and "\chrome\icons".

#17 so how to update

by jilles

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 2:11 AM

Reply to this message

I installed the talkback build this morning (like a good boy) and DOH!, no icons. What's the easiest way to get the icons (and keep all the plugins, mozdev extentions etc. that I've installed on my fresh install). Can I just unzip the zip file or should I wait for an updated installer.

#18 Installing icons

by Alastor <rowanmulder@zonnet.nl>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 2:20 AM

Reply to this message

You could extract the zip file to a temporary directory, eg. "C:\Temp"

Mozilla default new icon (the red lizard): Copy the just extracted "C:\Temp\Bin\mozilla.exe" to your Mozilla directory eg. "C:\Program Files\Mozilla.org\Mozilla", change the icons in your Windows Program menu (properties, change icon, and its right there) as it remained the blue gecko on my XP.

Mozilla apps icons: Copy the directory called "C:\Temp\Bin\Chrome\Icons" to your Mozilla directory called eg. "C:\Program Files\Mozilla.org\Mozilla\Chrome".

If you start Mozilla now, it will automatically use the new icons.

> Let's hope they re-release the installer .exe files (full and net). <

#53 Re: Re: new program icons!!!!

by MXN

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 2:06 PM

Reply to this message

"But I don't see any distinctive icons for apps? Just the blue gecko."

Actually, I think it's supposed to be a blue seamonkey. (The code name (?) for the browser part of Mozilla was SeaMonkey.)

- MXN

#54 SeaMonkeys & Gecko's

by Alastor <rowanmulder@zonnet.nl>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 2:41 PM

Reply to this message

Hmmm after googling on seamonkeys: <http://users.uniserve.com/~sbarclay/science.htm>

So I think it is a gecko afterall =)

#59 Re: SeaMonkeys & Gecko's

by superyooser

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 6:28 PM

Reply to this message

According to that page, sea monkeys are shrimp that don't have brains, have kidneys in their heads, breathe through their legs, and like to juggle algae. Keeping that in mind, look at the funny little critter here: <http://users.uniserve.com/~sbarclay/shrimpysm.gif> Typical Sea Monkey coder? :-) (just kidding, Mozillans are cool)

#73 Re: SeaMonkeys & Gecko's

by MXN

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 6:56 AM

Reply to this message

#34 Re: new program icons!!!!

by wtmcgee

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 10:48 AM

Reply to this message

use the stub installer, it has the new xpi's in it i think.

#43 Re: Re: new program icons!!!!

by Alastor <rowanmulder@zonnet.nl>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:08 PM

Reply to this message

Tried the stub(net) installer and it does have the new Mozilla icon and build ID: 2002072204, (installer is ID: 2002072104).

However, only the ZIP-ed version (ID: 200207704) has individual icons for each app. This Stub-installer gives only the MoZ head for each app. And the full installer .exe (build ID: 2002072104) gives only the blue gecko.

Something got a bit messed up I guess...

#37 maybe 1.0.1 will have the icons

by thegoldenear

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 10:58 AM

Reply to this message

I bet 1.0.1 has been waiting to get the icons too

#63 Re: new program icons!!!!

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 6:59 PM

Reply to this message

The installer builds missed the new program icons. If you want to see them you can use the zip builds, get a latest trunk nightly, or wait until 1.1 final ships (soon). Sorry for the inconvenience.

--Asa

#75 Works with stub installer

by timothyr <tim@richardson.net>

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 8:30 AM

Reply to this message

The icons worked for me on an NT box when I installed with the network stub installer.

#76 Only one icon

by Alastor <rowanmulder@zonnet.nl>

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 10:14 AM

Reply to this message

The stub/net-installer only shows the Mozilla red lizard icon. Not individual icons for each application (navigator/mail&news/etc.).

#86 Install "New" Icons

by ominx

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 9:14 PM

Reply to this message

The "new" Mozilla icons can be installed at deskmod. These icons have actually been available for quite some time now and install smoothly with 1.0+, it's just recently they have been distributed with the builds. The link is <http://mozilla.deskmod.co…cat&cat_name=mozicons>

Ominx

#14 sweet, works great

by ph1nn <ph1nn@earthlink.net>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:40 AM

Reply to this message

running right now.

I use Linux Slackware 8.1 and it runs great!

another nice release guys

#15 I'm impressed

by Hendikins

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:51 AM

Reply to this message

Aside from Kicker still being visible in full screen, I'm very happy with 1.1b.

I'm using CVS that's about 1.1b (It's only a few hours off if not) and it's working like a charm. Almost a pity to clobber tonight :)

I'm using SuSE Linux 8.0.

Anyone waiting for 1.0.1, try 1.1b instead. As others have said, you know you want to!

#82 Kicker?

by thelem

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 3:11 PM

Reply to this message

What is the kicker? Everything I see in fullscreen mode should be there IMO.

#88 Re: Kicker?

by Hendikins

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 10:43 PM

Reply to this message

Kicker is the KDE "taskbar"

#23 It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by penang

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 7:00 AM

Reply to this message

1.1 beta is still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

Will Mozilla ever be as fast as Opera ?

#24 Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by tny

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 7:21 AM

Reply to this message

[quote] 1.1 beta is still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

Will Mozilla ever be as fast as Opera ? [/quote]

Stop trolling. Have you ever tried Mozilla on a machine with any memory? My install of 1.1b is faster than IE (WXP, 512 MB, 1.6GHz), let alone Opera.

#30 Re: Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by krischi27

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 9:38 AM

Reply to this message

Well, do you mean everybody should put 512Megs RAM into their machines to get Mozilla run at a reasonable speed? Do you _really_ want to propose this? I can't believe the ultimate reply to the poor Mozilla performance a lot of people seem to experience is "Go and buy more RAM!" And: since when is a question about performance "trolling"? I think that performance is still a big problem of Mozilla and that the folks from Mozilla simply don't want to hear that. But do you really think this is the appropriate way of dealing with this? What would you say if you have a car that's maximum speed is 50 and the manufacturer of that car says: Well, it could go as fast as a Ferrari, you just have to buy a stronger motor!

#33 Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by zevious

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 10:48 AM

Reply to this message

I run the absolute latest nightly daily on 2 distinctly different boxes.

1. 933mhz Pentium 3 with 384MB RAM running Windows XP. 2. 400mhz Pentium 2 with 256MB RAM running Windows XP.

I wouldn't call either of these boxes "state of the art", yet Mozilla is far from slow on either machine. In fact, the 400mhz box previously worked fine with 128MB RAM.

You didn't mention what your computer is. I hope you don't say "Pentium 233MHZ with 64MB RAM running Windows 95"...

Which brings up another issue. The Mozilla folks shouldn't be expected to support older technology. As time goes on, everyone upgrades their computers. Why concentrate on fixing something that will fix itself?

#38 Re: Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by turi

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 11:00 AM

Reply to this message

"Which brings up another issue. The Mozilla folks shouldn't be expected to support older technology. As time goes on, everyone upgrades their computers. Why concentrate on fixing something that will fix itself?"

While I think that mozilla rocks regarding speed, it's never bad to put some energy into performance and bloat work. It pays of because it often gives better sometimes even easier to understand and maintain code and it allows you to run mozilla on things like PDAs and mobilephones.

And some of the coders working on performance issues wouldn't want to put their efforts to a different part of mozilla anyway. So not all the work spent here would otherwise go into new features and the like.

#46 Re: Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by krischi27

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:22 PM

Reply to this message

My computer is a 500Mhz AMD, 192 Megs RAM and Win2000 and the current Moz-buil I'm using is 2002070908. It's far from being a "state of the art box", too. But compared to IE5.5 Mozilla is slower on my machine at least in three "disciplines": 1: starting time of the browser, 2: scrolling pages with many images 3: loading time of large html-files: Just try loading the html user manual of mySQL once with mozilla and then with IE (no matter if 5.5 or 6.0). It _is_ awfully slow. You say Mozilla folks shouldn't be expected to support older technology. That's true. They shouldn't support non-performant code. And this will _not_ fix itself. The Mozilla guys always claim that they simply want to create the best browser on earth (or did I get something wrong? If so, please tell me and I will shut up immediately ). To my mind this does include a better speed than f***ing IE on application loading, scrolling and large site viewing.

#69 Re: Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 11:33 PM

Reply to this message

Can you post your times comparing Mozilla to IE regarding startup time and loading of a large HTML file? It would also be useful if you could direct us to the large HTML file thatt you used for testing. This information could be helpful in determining why Mozilla seems slower to you.

#77 Re: Re: Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by grigson

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 10:16 AM

Reply to this message

The mySQL document is available here <http://www.mysql.com/documentation/mysql/full/>

Took about 10 seconds to load on mine. Same in IE. Displaying page source is slow, but then it's doing all the formatting first. Takes around 14 seconds to display source. IE took 1 second -if that! Size of page 665.08 KB (681039 bytes)

I have to use IE in work, but it's always Mozilla when I'm home :o) I found that in general mozilla is around the same speed as IE.

Athlon1300 512MB RAM Moz BuildID: 2002072104

#78 Re: Re: Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by krischi27

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 11:26 AM

Reply to this message

OK: Startup times for Mozilla: 7 seconds, 5 secconds, 5 seconds. For IE 5.5: 1 second + something, <1 second, <1 second The difference in startup-times when using Mozilla's QuickLaunch is negligible.

The large html-file I tested is manual.html, the manual-file of MySQL 3.23.47. This file has a size of 2.2MB. It is stored locally on the harddrive, which is a FAT32-partition. It takes Mozilla between 46 and 50 seconds to load that file (I mean the time between pressing "open" in the Open File... - dialog and the complete rendering of the file.). The same task takes 12 seconds with IE 5.5 on my machine. And scrolling is also faster with IE: I took the file manual_toc.html form the MySQL-reference and scrolled the whole file down using the down-arrow of the scrollbars: With IE this took 8 seconds, with Mozilla it took 48 seconds. (That file has 84 KB).

#61 Re: Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by rickst29 <rickstockton@acer-access.com>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 6:53 PM

Reply to this message

Actually, I *AM* running Win-95 on a Cyrix M-II at 200Mhz (roughly the same as a Pentium MMX at 233). After the initial load delay, Mozilla is very snappy and nice to use! But, 64MB memory is absolutely a problem under Windoz. I am grateful to the Developer Community for suporting Win-95, and not forcing me to line M$ pockets with more ill-gotten "upgrade tax" monies.

My real PC, the other one, uses Linux. Both have 1.1Beta installed, and are running nicely.

#36 Re: Re: Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by tny

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 10:57 AM

Reply to this message

Nope. I mean that if one has a performance question, one should ask "I'm still getting slower performance than with Opera on a 233 MHz PII with 64 MB of RAM running Windows 95. Any suggestions?" NOT "It's still A W F U L L Y slow! When will it be as fast as Opera," which, as expressed, is a troll. My response was more reasonable than the "question" stated.

I'm saying that on MY machine, with those specs, Mozilla is actually running slightly faster than the browser that came with the OS on the same machine. So it's not just a case of Mozilla being achingly slow, as the troll posited; it's a case of different machines and configurations getting different relative responses.

When I want speed, I open Cygwin and run Lynx. I'm not going to complain because Opera is slower than Lynx on my system. Of course it is! They do different things. If you're complaining about performance, S P E C I F Y - what is slower than Opera? Application loading time? Click to load? Are you using the same box, the same internet connection, the same pages to test? On my box, application loading is fastest in IE6, click to load is fastest in Mozilla. Click to load is what matters most to me.

#39 Application Launch and Click to Load Times

by tny

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 11:08 AM

Reply to this message

Application Launch:

IE6 4.3 s Mozilla 3.9 s Opera 5.3 s

Click to Load

IE 6 0.7 s Mozilla 0.3 s Opera 0.3 s

Done with the system described above and the latest versions of Mozilla, Opera, and IE. Opera looks like it's loading faster because the UI appears more quickly than Mozilla's, but the loading of the home page doesn't complete as quickly as it does in Mozilla. This is btw a completely fresh system, only installed last Wednesday, using the same pages (pure XHTML, on a server connected to this computer by a 100BaseT ethernet and a Cisco router only, ping times of less than 1 ms).

#80 Nice :-) (NT)

by toom

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 1:12 PM

Reply to this message

Nice :-)

#41 Re: Re: Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by exotrip

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 11:38 AM

Reply to this message

My laptop has a 800mhz P3-m, 98mb of RAM, and is running Windows 2000, and Mozilla runs just dandy, as fast as MSIE 6. And the startup has gotten MUCH faster (I never run in turbo mode).

#72 Re: Better than MSIE? In a few more years, maybe

by unapersson

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 2:47 AM

Reply to this message

I've got 128MB on both my Linux machine at home and Windows machine at work, and don't have problems with its speed on either of them.

#35 Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by turi

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 10:53 AM

Reply to this message

Hm, fast in doing what? The only thing opera is faster than Mozilla for me is startup. Mozilla displays pages faster than any other browser. Yes, even faster than text browser like lynx. Mozilla has a better mechanism of displaying tables before their fully loaded.

#70 Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by ph1nn <ph1nn@earthlink.net>

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 12:19 AM

Reply to this message

My biggest (currently only) complaint for Mozilla hasnt changed since the Mx builds... I wish it would boot faster. I run Linux so i cant do that l33t thing that windows users can by keeping it in member. This is lame, i really dont see why it cant automatically load itself and keep some in memory...

I like the idea of having it just pop open when i want it, even if its not truely ever closed...

Other than that, ive loved Mozilla for years

#83 Re: It's still AWFULLY s-l-o-w !

by jaman

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 3:17 PM

Reply to this message

This comment has caused a lot of discussion. In general, I would disagree that Mozilla is "awfully slow". It is quite responsive on this here P-III 500 and my P-II at home.

However, as a former Opera user and a full-time Mozilla user, I notice a big difference in response times between when I hit the back button and the last visited page appears. When used on the same machine, Opera is lightning-quick, while Mozilla always has a relatively lengthy pause. Sometimes it's several seconds.

I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm just saying that I *notice* it, and I wish I didn't. I've tried changing cache settings and I did some quick google and bugzilla searches. No dice.

Is anyone here able to address this? Anyone got a solution or a recommendation or a link to some discussion of this?

#84 bug 33269

by dipa

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 3:59 PM

Reply to this message

It had a lot of discussion. Finally, it was marked as a duplicate of bug 38486.

#25 Export bookmark in 1.1 beta

by MaySky

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 7:23 AM

Reply to this message

Exporting bookmark is not saved in 1.1 beta, this is a bit surprising since 1.1 alpha does save.

Anyone else has the same problem?

#26 Re: Export bookmark in 1.1 beta

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 7:29 AM

Reply to this message

Yes its a known bug been around sense 6/14 or atleast thats the first report of it. bug 151837 found searching bugzilla for "export bookmarks" Now was that so hard? :) Anyways not much work has been done on it, care to give the code a twirl!

#27 Re: Export bookmark in 1.1 beta

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 7:54 AM

Reply to this message

Btw I tried it in 1.1a and it didn't work either. Are you sure about that?

#66 Re: Re: Export bookmark in 1.1 beta

by MaySky

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 10:27 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, the bookmark I saved (and imported to beta) is from Alpha.

Since 1.1 alpha does not display some websites correctly, I tried the nightly; the nightly has much better compatiblity on displaying websites, but exporting bookmark does not save either. Thought Beta would solve that problem, guess not ...

I use Win2000 if that makes any difference.

#85 Re: Re: Re: Export bookmark in 1.1 beta

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 8:55 PM

Reply to this message

Anyways, you can always just copy your bookmarks.html file from your profile directory. " Otherwise, shrugs. Wait till it gets fixed.

#28 this is nice, crashes less than 1.1a

by michaelH

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 7:58 AM

Reply to this message

Not bad at all. A few noticeable improvements from 1.1a. I haven't seen headers showing up at the top of some pages when pipelining is enabled, which is nice (but it still may appear, i haven't used it for that long yet). Before, I had both 1.0 and 1.1a running, using different profiles (it was a bugger, both overwrote eachother's preferences for being default browser, etc and profile windows kept appearing) Now I have totally removed 1.1a and 1.0 - going straight to 1.1b. Now that i've made sure the orbit theme works well with it, i'm happy. No regrets

Mike

#29 Netscape 7?

by stupiddog2

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 8:04 AM

Reply to this message

Are there any news about Netscape 7 Final?

#40 Re: Netscape 7?

by VMD

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

I would like to hear about this, also. While I use Mozilla, I would like to upgrade my Mom from Netscape 4.79 to Netscape 7.

#94 Re: Linux flash

by olo <olo@altkom.com.pl>

Thursday July 25th, 2002 1:35 PM

Reply to this message

Your Mom is a web browser? Gosh, what a weird family you have ;-)

#32 Context Editor?

by higa <lukasnoname@yahoo.com>

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 10:26 AM

Reply to this message

I have problems getting the Context Editor from <http://www.xulplanet.com> to work, here is a screenshot: <http://higa.dns2go.com/context.png>

#47 Re: Context Editor?

by MXN

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:55 PM

Reply to this message

Most of the add-ons at Xulplanet.com don't work anymore, unfortunately. I miss my Launch Chrome menuitem.

The error you see there seems to be because there's a DTD file missing. You might try reinstalling the Context Editor again.

- MXN <http://mxn.netfirms.com/>

#64 Re: Context Editor?

by kc7gza

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 9:38 PM

Reply to this message

The context editor broke a few milestones back when they introduced the new context menu structure. The problem is, but adding submenus to the context menu, they made it impossible to make a context menu editor the way had done it.

There might be a new context editor using some customizable toolbar code I wrote for the PrefBar2, but it will probably be a month or so before I get time to write it.

-- Aaron Andersen <http://www.XulPlanet.com>

#74 Chrome Launchpad

by MXN

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 7:02 AM

Reply to this message

Aaron, I was wondering why the Chrome Launchpad hasn't been working for a couple milestones now. It's very useful for me, because I'm trying to develop my own XUL application.

- MXN <http://mxn.netfirms.com/>

#65 Re: Context Editor?

by kc7gza

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 9:43 PM

Reply to this message

The context editor broke a few milestones back when they introduced the new context menu structure. The problem is, but adding submenus to the context menu, they made it impossible to make a context menu editor the way had done it.

There might be a new context editor using some customizable toolbar code I wrote for the PrefBar2, but it will probably be a month or so before I get time to write it.

-- Aaron Andersen <http://www.XulPlanet.com>

#42 Open Link in New Window

by VMD

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 11:59 AM

Reply to this message

I like the fact that the "Open Link in New Window" is back on top on "right clicks". I didn't really like it being below Tab in 1.0, especially since we still use 4.79. Moving from one to the other was a minor inconvenience.

Everything seems fine thus far in 1.1b. I can't picture using anything but Mozilla. Thanks again for the great browser.

#45 chinese build is missing

by cyfer

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 12:20 PM

Reply to this message

There is a link on the release page about the Chinese build, but when I click it, I got 404 error.

#68 What about Drag and Drop? It still doesn't work!

by DavidT

Tuesday July 23rd, 2002 10:54 PM

Reply to this message

What about Drag and Drop? It still doesn't work, even in 1.1b! I am talking the sample in xulplanet (XUL Tutorial 8.7) with use of <script src="chrome://global/content/nsDragAndDrop.js"/></script> <script src="chrome://global/content/nsTransferable.js"/></script>.

It doesn't work in 1.0, not in 1.1b. Even after the script is given permissions. Is there any sample/info how to make it work in a regular, not an application, XUL file? I'm talking about ondraggesture, ondragover, ondragexit, ondragdrop events. IE has similar events and they are very handy. Of course, one can simulate Drag n' Drop with mouseup, down and over events, but it still artificial and inconvinient.

David

#95 Re: Linux flash

by olo <olo@altkom.com.pl>

Thursday July 25th, 2002 1:41 PM

Reply to this message

What's the bugzila bug number for this issue?

#96 There is no bug id, but here is a test case

by DavidT

Thursday July 25th, 2002 9:32 PM

Reply to this message

Can't find this bug number! But case is simple: 1. Drag and Drop within a single XUL document. XUL is not local (not Application).

First of all, there is no detailed documentation around about Drag and Drop for this case. Secondly, this doesn't work in the XULPlanet tutorial, nor in this case:

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<?xml-stylesheet href="chrome://global/skin/" type="text/css"?>

<window title="Widget Dragger" id="test-window" orient="horizontal" xmlns="<http://www.mozilla.org/ke…ekeeper/there.is.only.xul>">

<script src="dragboard.js"/></script>

<stack id="board" canDrop="true" style="width:300px; height: 300px; max-width: 300px; max-height: 300px; background-color:yellow;" ondragover="return DoDragOver(event)" ondragdrop="return DoDrop(event)"> </stack> <vbox> <image id="o1" src="sveta.jpg" style="width:40px;height:40px;" elem="button" ondraggesture="return DoStartDrag(event)"/> </vbox> </window>

Where dragboard.js is:

function DoDragOver(event){ window.status="dragOver"; return true; }

function DoDrop(event){ window.status="dragDrop"; return true; }

function DoStartDrag(event){ return true; }

Actually, ondraggesture and ondragover work fine, but dragdrop handler is never called.

Maybe it is a silly metter to have a Drag and Drop working. Maybe it is really working. But how to know this without ANY documentation and ANY reference?!!

Please, tell me I'm wrong!

Regards, David

#97 There is no bug id, but here is a test case

by DavidT

Thursday July 25th, 2002 9:33 PM

Reply to this message

Can't find this bug number! But case is simple: 1. Drag and Drop within a single XUL document. XUL is not local (not Application).

First of all, there is no detailed documentation around about Drag and Drop for this case. Secondly, this doesn't work in the XULPlanet tutorial, nor in this case:

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<?xml-stylesheet href="chrome://global/skin/" type="text/css"?>

<window title="Widget Dragger" id="test-window" orient="horizontal" xmlns="<http://www.mozilla.org/ke…ekeeper/there.is.only.xul>">

<script src="dragboard.js"/></script>

<stack id="board" canDrop="true" style="width:300px; height: 300px; max-width: 300px; max-height: 300px; background-color:yellow;" ondragover="return DoDragOver(event)" ondragdrop="return DoDrop(event)"> </stack> <vbox> <image id="o1" src="sveta.jpg" style="width:40px;height:40px;" elem="button" ondraggesture="return DoStartDrag(event)"/> </vbox> </window>

Where dragboard.js is:

function DoDragOver(event){ window.status="dragOver"; return true; }

function DoDrop(event){ window.status="dragDrop"; return true; }

function DoStartDrag(event){ return true; }

Actually, ondraggesture and ondragover work fine, but dragdrop handler is never called.

Maybe it is a silly metter to have a Drag and Drop working. Maybe it is really working. But how to know this without ANY documentation and ANY reference?!!

Please, tell me I'm wrong!

Regards, David

#81 about speed, again

by dipa

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 3:02 PM

Reply to this message

This is not trolling ;) Some cases (talking about ordinary html or javascript/dhtml) do really suffer, performance wise. There are some perf bugs on those issues. It's not my overall sense about Mozilla speed, though. What annoys me most is the ui responsiveness problem. I'm not in the "toss-the-xul-thing" paranoia. It's about the heavy cpu usage (or it's just poor multithreading?) and how it affects ui snappiness. When moderately heavy pages are loaded, opening a new window is very slow or it doesn't work and menus are not responding. While admitting that my machines is rather slow (K6-III/400, P2-450, 384MB), I would be happy to see some ui perf progress into Mozilla 1.2a.

Save as dialog is still extremely slow on Win2K, if ten or more files exist in the target directory. Annoying to see the filename list being drawn in real time ! See bug 111821.

Regardless of the above performance complaints and a few regressions (mainly in bookmark manager), 1.1b is a nice release. In my experience, all recent builds are way better than 1.0 or any of its branches. The only trunk crash I had in the last 2 weeks (after heavy browsing) was in Javascript debugger.

#87 What about anti-aliased fonts?

by wilbertnl

Wednesday July 24th, 2002 9:59 PM

Reply to this message

I'm using mozilla-1.0 with the gdkxft preload and I'm wondering if mozilla-1.1b supports xft and anti-aliasing. Do I need to compile with gtk+-2 support to get beautyfonts, or what?

#89 Running Mozilla 1.1 Beta - S_L_O_W !

by penang

Thursday July 25th, 2002 2:30 AM

Reply to this message

Test platform:

Original Pentium 133 MHz, 80 MB of RAM.

Test running Opera 6.04 vs. Mozilla 1.1 Beta.

The opening screen, the loading, and almost all the other functions, Opera 6.04 wins hands down.

Mozilla 1.1 Beta just C_R_A_W_L_S, like a snail.

I can run Opera 6.04 on Pentium 90 MHz machine, but Mozilla 1.1 Beta refuses even to start.

Now you tell me if Mozilla is heading for the right direction or not ?

Mozilla has gone much too bloated.

Count me as a troll if you want, but that won't help the fact that Mozilla 1.1 Beta loses out to Opera 6.04.

#90 Your computer: S - L - O - W

by leafdigital

Thursday July 25th, 2002 4:25 AM

Reply to this message

Computer hardware and software is generally designed around a three-year life cycle. That means that Mozilla (which was just released now) should work reasonably well on machines that were new in 1999.

New PCs in 1999 would have included Celeron 400 (three times the speed of your machine) or a K6-3 400 (ditto). (Towards the end of 1999, where we'll be comparing against fairly soon, Pentium 3 and the Athlon 750 MHz were released.)

I understand that it's not always possible (or necessary!) for everybody to upgrade their PC after three years, but you have to start expecting new software to perform poorly after that time. The latest versions of Photoshop or Microsoft Office will also be slow on your PC.

Mozilla does have some performance problems (with DHTML) and its memory consumption may not be ideal (I'm not sure it performs well on 64 MB machines which would fit in under that three-year rule) but there is no point comparing performance against a machine from past generations. If you want to run performance tests on a low-end machine, choose one which was new three years ago. Maybe Mozilla performs badly there too, though I suspect it should be at least bearable. (I ran Mozilla on my previous machines at home and work, which were of that generation; and Mozilla performance has improved since those old releases.)

As for Opera, Opera is specifically designed to be small, perhaps catering specifically for those people running outdated PCs. That's great! You should run Opera and forget about Mozilla until you upgrade your PC.

But P-133 was released in June 1995; don't assume many people care that Mozilla's performance is inadequate on a seven-year-old PC.

Hope this clears it up for you.

--sam

#91 Testing on a 133MHz 5-year-old+ PC is pointless...

by rkl

Thursday July 25th, 2002 5:27 AM

Reply to this message

> Original Pentium 133 MHz, 80 MB of RAM.

This is, as we should point out, well below the minimum spec that is quoted on the mozilla.org site for Intel hardware running Mozilla (it wants 233Mhz as a minimum spec). There is a reason that minimum specs are quoted - it's so that users below that spec don't experience slowness/memory problems.

Personally, I'm still surprised that 64MB RAM is the minimum - a goodly chunk of that will be taken up by the OS (particularly Windows 2000 or XP) and any app run after that will inevitably be swapping.

If you really must run Mozilla on a sub-233Mhz machine, as you insist on doing, that I would suggest increasing your RAM (e.g. to 256MB RAM if you can manage it, but at least to 128MB RAM). RAM has been extremely cheap in the past couple of years and is a very cost-effective way of speeding up "slow" hardware.

BTW, I bought my current PC in April for 700 pounds (about $1100) and its spec is probably about 10 times what that 133MHz is - needless to say, Mozilla flies on it (in both WinXP and Linux) and the difference between Mozilla and Opera/IE is basically negligible in terms of speed on that hardware (and my machine will be considered slow in 3 years time !).

PCs bought new in the last 3 years (as another poster said, the typical corporate lifecycle is 3 years) all well exceeded the 133MHz spec, so testing 133Mhz machines with Mozilla seems somewhat "mad" to me. If you must use Gecko on such old hardware, try K-Meleon at <http://www.kmeleon.org>, but be prepared to lose some of the advanced features of Mozilla if you do.

BTW, Opera, for those who have forgotten, is close-sourced, has abysmal JavaScript support (many JS-driven sites that work fine in IE and Mozilla fail in Opera 6) and is adware (costs you money to remove them). Quite why anyone would run Opera on recent hardware instead of Mozilla is anyone's guess - Opera's *only* forte in my books is that it uses less RAM than Mozilla, so will work better on low-memory machines. It has no other benefits I can see.

#100 Are you as clueless as you seem ?

by penang

Friday July 26th, 2002 5:43 AM

Reply to this message

Pentium 133 may be six years old, but the thing that is important is NOT the age of the processor, rather, the BLOATED-NESS and SLUGGISHNESS of the Mozilla 1.1. Beta.

Sure, I can use my 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 work machine to run the Mozilla vs Opera test, and I may get 0.x sec difference, but what's the point ?

The REAL TEST of BLOATED-NESS and SLUGGISHNESS of a program is to test the program in an OLD (slow) machine, which, in turn, will greatly EMPHASIZE the EFFECT of the BLOATED-NESS and the SLUGGISHNESS of the program.

The Mozilla 1.1 Beta's sluggishness and bloated-ness REALLY SHINES on the Pentium 133 MHz machine. Opera 6.04 runs okay (not fast) but you don't feel any unncessary sluggishness.

On the other hand, Mozilla 1.1 Beta really C_R_A_W_L_S !

And as if to really emphasize the difference between Opera 6.04 and Mozilla 1.1 Beta, I tried both programs on an even ancient machine, Pentium 90, 32 MB RAM.

Opera 6.04 RUNS on the machine, while Mozilla 1.1 Beta CAN NOT !

Anyone wants to defend the "goodname" of Mozilla 1.1 Beta should try testing the program on really old machine, and see for themselves how "well" the program behaves.

If Opera 6.04 can run on a 32 MB RAM, Pentium 90 machine, why can't Mozilla 1.1 Beta ?

I am not saying that Opera is better than Mozilla, but at least, Opera is MORE FLEXIBLE than Mozilla, and if Mozilla wants to claim as the "BEST BROWSER", the Mozilla / Netscape people should at least do something about the BLOATED-NESS and the SLUGGISHNESS of Mozilla.

That is all.

#101 You're the clueless one mate :)

by Hendikins

Friday July 26th, 2002 7:27 AM

Reply to this message

> Pentium 133 may be six years old, but the thing that is important is NOT the age of the processor, rather, the BLOATED-NESS and SLUGGISHNESS of the Mozilla 1.1. Beta.

Then compare on something that barely meets the system requirements - a Pentium 233 MMX with 64MB RAM. If you ignore the system requirements, blame yourself when the program doesn't work properly (if at all).

A Pentium 233MMX is quite dated by today's standards and Mozilla runs on that. There's been reports of it running on even slower machines given enough RAM. Of course, YMMV and don't complain if/when it doesn't...

#108 people, please don't answer to trolls (n/t)

by dipa

Friday July 26th, 2002 1:30 PM

Reply to this message

.

#114 How come Opera can run on it and Mozilla can't ?

by penang

Sunday July 28th, 2002 5:11 PM

Reply to this message

Please answer this question:

How come Opera 6.04 can run on Pentium 90Mhz, 32 MB RAM machine, and Mozilla 1.1 Beta can't ?

What's wrong with Mozilla ?

#116 Re: How come Opera can run on it and Mozilla can't

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday July 29th, 2002 1:13 AM

Reply to this message

How come Opera 6.04 doesn't support the W3C DOM? How come Opera 6.04 doesn't do XSL, XSLT, SOAP, MathML? How come Opera 6.04 doesn't do IMAP mail or have LDAP addressing support? How come Opera's web development tools (JS console, DOM inspector, JS debugger, etc.) are non-existant? How come Opera 6.04 doesn't remember my site logins and passwords or let me block images or delete cookies or history items?

The point is that Mozilla is a larger and more capable product than Opera. Smaller and less capable browsers may run on lesser hardware.

How come the palm web browser can run on my Handspring Visor but Opera 6.04 can't? Well, simple, the palm web browser is not as featureful as Opera and it will never be.

By the way, Mozilla can run on a Pentium 90 with 32 MB ram. It won't be fast enough for a lot of people but I run Mozilla on win98 on a P100 with 32 MB RAM and with quicklaunch it starts up nearly as fast as IE or Netscape 4.x and it displays more of the pages I visit better than Opera. So to say that it "can't" run on a P90 is incorrect.

--Asa

#103 Must remember mozilla1.1b does more.

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Friday July 26th, 2002 8:02 AM

Reply to this message

You must remember though that mozilla1.1b does more. It might be bloated, but then again GUI in itself is a bloat feature. Would it be fair to compare mozilla VS pure command line lynx on a really old machine. Technology happends. With that the ability to add new features. Why should mozilla toss out reasonable features so that it can run on an old machine. If I want to run a browser on a 386 I'd get Netscape 2.x. But why would I do that to myself?

#106 Re: Are you as clueless as you seem ?

by cyfer

Friday July 26th, 2002 10:13 AM

Reply to this message

Well, I was wondering why Opera could not display Chinese characters correctly even in Chinese version of Windows, at the same time, Mozilla could dislpay Chinese, Japanese, Korean and more and more on my Dell w/ English version of Windows ME.

Of course, this morning, I found that a Chinese company had codeveloped a Chinese version of Opera, which could display Chinese. But whithout bother a Chinese company, English version mozilla could display my home town news from it's very beginning.

Without mozilla, I even can not read email from my old friends and my father on my Solarise workstation, IE really sucks in displaying Chinese even at hotmail, not to mention Opera.

I think that is one of reasons, why mozilla ought to use more powerful CPU and more RAM.

#107 It is partially true

by Godfather

Friday July 26th, 2002 10:43 AM

Reply to this message

I run Mozilla on Windows XP/2000 on a 300 MHz Pentium II with 128 MiB of RAM. In both cases, it is painfully slow as soon as more than one page is displayed. That is because of the memory bloat Mozilla suffers from. It is also due to the poor multithreading. When multiple pages are displayed, scripts tend to all run at the same time without priority management, causing disasters in terms of usability. Mozilla often consumes more than 50 MiB of VM Size.

Right now according to the task manager Mozilla consumes 31,376 kiB of VM Size. Internet Explorer + Windows Explorer (so that I do not ignore the IE "integration" into Windows. By the way explorer.exe also displays the start menu, the desktop icons, etc.) do consume 23,548 kiB. IE alone is 11,684 kiB. Both display this page alone and nothing more.

Even only with a mail window open it can eat RAM at an incredible pace. Newsgroup messge checking and display is very slow. Outlook Express is at least two or three times faster. At least it does not hang up does nothing (no I am not talking about swapping) and then after 20 s. displaying what it has to display.

The truth is that if you think about it in a rational way, it is evident that the features that Mozilla has can perfectly be done reasonably quickly on a 300 MHz CPU. Mozilla is not a network 3D game with surround sound and artificial intelligence. It is a dumb HTML display program. It should work quickly. The fact that today new CPUs are insanely quick for the software they have to run does not change anything. Anyway if the trend continues Intel and AMD are quickly headed for bankruptcy unless new software actually uses the computing power of their chips and does something useful with it.

The only thing I know is that IE does give me a more pleasant experience in terms of speed most of the time. Do not tell me that Mozilla is just much more sophisticated than IE; it is not true. Also the integration issue is moot. When Mozilla and only Mozilla is open on my machine, Windows XP can and does swap all unnecessary integration features and all the rest away from the physical memory. It basically gives all the user space physical memory to Mozilla. Even then Mozilla is slow.

This is not a critique of Mozilla features. It just emphasizes that other programs that basically do the same thing as Mozilla are leaner, much leaner. Or at least they manage their bloat better so that I do not suffer from it.

#109 Re: It is partially true

by dipa

Friday July 26th, 2002 3:17 PM

Reply to this message

Not necessarily arguing with you about multithreading and other performance issues. But I couldn't agree with the main point of your post: "It just emphasizes that other programs that basically do the same thing as Mozilla are leaner, much leaner. Or at least they manage their bloat better so that I do not suffer from it."

Mozilla is the most standards compliant, most secure multi-plattform internet suite available today. No need to woory about system security updates, IE security updates, iframes exploiting worms etc. So you can't compare on performance terms only. As myself and others already posted, 300-500 MHz machines are actually obsolete today. We'd like to see performance improvements (memory usage has been improved a lot) but there are many other additional parameters that must be taken into account when you compare Mozilla to other competitive products.

And minding you that Intel and AMD aren't "quickly headed for bankruptcy". That fact already explains why you are wrong with all this performance/bloat paranoia.

#111 Re: Are you as clueless as you seem ?

by Dobbins

Friday July 26th, 2002 6:03 PM

Reply to this message

A Pentium 133? Where do you draw the line? Why not a 486? A 386? A Commodore 64? How much "BLOATED-NESS and the SLUGGISHNESS" does opera show on a 33 Mhz 486 with 8 Meg of Ram? If Netscape 3.0 can run on a 486 why can't Opera 6.04?

When you develop software you are faced with a choice, capability or legacy support. If Opera wants to sacrifice capability to produce a browser that runs on out of date machines fine, but that is no reason that every one else should settle for lowered capabilities because of a tiny minority who wish to hang on to dated equipment.

#112 ./configure

by tepples <tepples@spamcop.net>

Friday July 26th, 2002 7:16 PM

Reply to this message

> When you develop software you are faced with a choice, capability or legacy support.

I'd rather make this choice at compile time, when I ./configure the build.

#115 Opera sacrificing capabilities ?!

by penang

Sunday July 28th, 2002 5:30 PM

Reply to this message

I don't believe you are so clueless, but oh hack ...

You sez: "If Opera wants to sacrifice capability to produce a browser that runs on out of date machines fine ..."

Please buddy, please tell me which "capabilities" Opera has "sacrified", in order to "runs on out of date machines" ?

A browser is a browser. A browser should do what a browser does.

It's not a MP3 player, or a 3d modeller, or a spell-checker and such.

Mozilla is a browser, so is Opera.

I don't care how much "capabilities" Mozilla comes with, what I need from a browser is it does its things. Opera does what it does fine, I have no problem with it so far - no matter how much "sacrifices" it has done - and right now, Mozilla is much too BLOATED.

If Opera can run on a certain configuration and Mozilla can't, it only shows that Mozilla has a problem, and not the other way around.

Opera is not the one that has the problem.

Mozilla, on the other hand, has. Namely, OVER BLOATED-NESS !

The bloat of Mozilla not only causes it to run VERY S-L-O-W-L-Y, it actually STOPS Mozilla to run on platforms that Opera can run smoothly, without problem.

Think about it, will ya, please ?

#117 Re: Opera sacrificing capabilities ?!

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday July 29th, 2002 1:17 PM

Reply to this message

It sounds like Opera's limited feature set and limited compatability with existing web sites (both of which should improve with future releases) is sufficient for you. It's not for me and it's not for many others. Mozilla has more than you need. Opera has less than I need. Seems to me that you should be using Opera and I should be using Mozilla. Where's the problem?

--Asa

#92 Many more crashes than 1.0

by rdebay

Thursday July 25th, 2002 8:11 AM

Reply to this message

Version 1.1b has been crashing about once on hour for me, it's sent about four or five talkback crash reports since I installed it Tuesday. I'm doing nothing special, just browsing standard sites like fema.gov and checking mail at mail2web.com. The last two items on the call stack usually are: gklayout!NS_NewFrameManager imglib2!nsProxyObjectCallInfo::operator= although the actual line of code that fails is always different, and xpcom!NS_NewThreadPool is also in the call stack, so I'm guessing there is a race condition and it depends when the new thread hits something that hasn't been initialized yet.

#93 When Mail launches, show Web Page in message area

by VMD

Thursday July 25th, 2002 8:57 AM

Reply to this message

The web page that I use when I open Mail does not appear (<http://www.newslinx.com/>). It displayed in 1.0.

1.1b crashed last night. 1.0 has never crashed on me.

#99 Connection Problem

by jorgenson

Friday July 26th, 2002 5:36 AM

Reply to this message

Upgraded to Mozilla 1.1Beta - generally very very nice. Now I seem to have problem with connecting. On startup I first click on the Mozilla shortcut to start. It does not connect and Windows shuts down Mozilla with a dialogue box giving the option to "close" or "ignore". I click "close" and Mozilla closes.

I then click the Mozilla shortcut again to start Mozilla and my computer connects correctly. Mozilla starts.

Any help here as to the problem? I would appreciate it.

#102 Re: Connection Problem

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Friday July 26th, 2002 7:53 AM

Reply to this message

Sounds like you may have profile problems??. Try completly uninstalling mozilla, and reinstalling it and creating a new profile. If that fixes it (and the old profile doesn't work) go into the profile directories and move the files from your old one into your new one that you need. (Mail folders and bookmarks, don't move prefs.js or others as they may be corrupted)

#105 Connection Problem

by jorgenson

Friday July 26th, 2002 8:19 AM

Reply to this message

Just read your response on the Mozillazine web site. The same problem occurs when I try MS Internet Explorer - I even tried a new install on Netscape 4.76 - same problem.

Could I have corrupted something in my Windows95 operating system. Just strange - message on first try to connect causes all to shut down - second attempt works fine.

Would appreciate any added help here?

Thanks again - Harvey Jorgenson, Sparta, New Jersey

#104 Connection Problem

by jorgenson

Friday July 26th, 2002 8:18 AM

Reply to this message

Dear John -

Just read your response on the Mozillazine web site. The same problem occurs when I try MS Internet Explorer - I even tried a new install on Netscape 4.76 - same problem.

Could I have corrupted something in my Windows95 operating system. Just strange - message on first try to connect causes all to shut down - second attempt works fine.

Would appreciate any added help here?

Thanks again - Harvey Jorgenson, Sparta, New Jersey

#110 Chinese build is there now!

by cyfer

Friday July 26th, 2002 4:22 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks for the great works.