Mozilla 1.0 Release Rated Most Significant Event of 2002

Saturday January 11th, 2003

Our final poll of 2002 asked you to pick out the most significant event of the year. Of the 2,454 people who voted, a little over half (52%) thought it was the release of Mozilla 1.0. The start of the Phoenix project was the next most popular option, favoured by 18%. With a 10% vote share, the release of Netscape 7.0 just managed to beat the personal epiphany 9% of you experienced when you realised that pressing Ctrl+L (Mac: Cmd+L) moves the focus to the Location Bar. Next up was the launch of the Chimera project, which received 3% of the vote. The two Gecko-based clients released by AOL in 2002 got roughly equal numbers of votes, with AOL for Mac OS X (2%) narrowly beating CompuServe 7.0 (2%). Finally, 23 of you (0%) didn't like any of the options on the list.

For our next poll, we'd like to know what you think about Safari. That's Safari. One more time, for those of you who think we're ignoring it, Safari. Let us know what you think about Apple's new KHTML-based browser and watch the latest results to see if others agree.

#1 Safari is a WASTE

by Kovu

Saturday January 11th, 2003 7:20 PM

If Apple spent any time whatsoever thinking about trying to one up Microsoft on technology, they might have a chance. Thinking that Apple users need a new browser is just stupid. This was the biggest announement at MacWorld. RA. Someone wake me up when a CEO who isn't an idiot takes over.

#2 Re: Safari is a WASTE

by robdogg

Saturday January 11th, 2003 10:03 PM

Ahhh, Apple does need a new browser. The current browser situation on the Macs is dismal. The startup time of both IE & Moz is quite horrible. Add to it the fact that for Mac users the fastest machine available to them is still under 1Ghz. They have no option of buying a 3Ghz machine, like PC users do. You should see how slow the flat panel lamp-shade looking iMacs actually feel. Most of those run at about 667 Mhz. So more competition will yield better results for users who shelled out $2k for these boxes.

So I totally applaud efforts like Chimera & Safari, though I don't buy their claim that Gecko engine takes significantly longer to load. On my windows box, KMeleon loads almost as fast as Notepad. There maybe an incremental speed increase from KHTML engine (Konq is my browser of choice on RH8), but my guess is that most of the differences in cold load time between Safari & Chimera is that Chimera has more features (tabs, sidebars, etc...).

#3 Good deal!

by pizzach

Saturday January 11th, 2003 10:39 PM

More browsers are good, yay! (O_O) You need Mac OS X 10.2.x!?!?!? I only have Mac OS X 10.1.5. I guess Chimera is still my favorite browser! But seriously, you can't blame apple for trying to fill voids. Apple filled voids for MP3 players and other programs that other people weren't making (unlike) the PC world, where freeware is a bit more abundant.

#4 You have no idea what you're talking about...

by Fireball1244

Sunday January 12th, 2003 12:12 AM

Well, at least not when you're talking about Macs. There have been 1GHz + Macs for quite some time now. The top-of-the-line dual PowerPC G4 Macs run at 1.25 GHz. None of the flat panel iMacs have ever run at 667 MHz -- the lowest speed for them is 700 MHz, which is due to be bumped soon. And the 700MHz iMac is nowhere near $2,000. And despite their lower MHz ratings, Apple computers do not feel "slow." Please do not spread fud about Mac hardware, when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Regarding the two browsers, both Safari and Chimera are very nice. Chimera is a bit slower on my two systems, but neither is actually "slow" by any measure.

#6 Perceived speed of iMacs

by webgremlin

Sunday January 12th, 2003 8:13 AM

So his details were wrong, but IMO he's right about how the flat-panel iMacs feel. Compared to my year-older Compaq notebook (800 mhz), it does feel a bit sluggish. The performance on doing something simple things like resizing an IE window (or any other) is very noticably bad compared to my Compaq.

-wg <><

#10 YMMV

by Fireball1244

Sunday January 12th, 2003 11:39 AM

My 800 MHzG4 iMac feels noticeably faster than my 800 MHz Pentium III Dell desktop system -- particularly since I upgraded to OS X Jaguar.

#12 Re: YMMV

by jsebrech

Sunday January 12th, 2003 11:54 AM

Why does everyone keep comparing systems baced on CPU mhz, which is just about the most meaningless performance statistic of the whole computer?

#13 I dunno.

by Fireball1244

Sunday January 12th, 2003 12:15 PM

I was just saying that, IME, my Macs were nothing close to slow. And in terms of the real important factors: interface and usability, every Mac I've ever used has been lightyears ahead of any other computer I've ever owned, be it running Windows 95/98/Me/XP or one of the versions of Linux I've tried. If the OS's UI isn't visually appealing, or makes me go hunting when I want to do simple tasks, then I don't care if its the most powerful computer on the planet: it's utterly worthless to me.

#5 Re: Re: Safari is a WASTE

by macpeep

Sunday January 12th, 2003 3:18 AM

"You should see how slow the flat panel lamp-shade looking iMacs actually feel. Most of those run at about 667 Mhz. So more competition will yield better results for users who shelled out $2k for these boxes. "

Now I don't use any Apple machines myself and my nickname has nothing to do with Macintoshes (although I do have an old Apple IIe in the kitchen and an old Mac SE 30 in the bookshelf, but those are just "antiques") but please, you can't just make up things and claim them to be true. If you're arguing something, you have to stick to facts.

Here are some facts about the lamp-shade iMacs:

The LOW END iMac, that is, the slowest one, is 700MHz, not 667, gratned you said "about". But it also isn't $2000. It's $1199. For $1699, you get a *DUAL* 867MHz PowerMac. Use up the rest of the money left over from the $2000 on RAM and other hardware and you get a very nice box indeed.

Sure, the price performance ratio isn't as good as for PC's and for $2000, you get just about all the hardware you can dream of on a PC, and then some. And I too would never buy an iMac with that hardware at those prices. But if you're going to talk about Macintoshes, at least stick to the facts.

#7 Re: Re: Re: Safari is a WASTE

by Hendikins

Sunday January 12th, 2003 9:50 AM

I'd have no hope of getting a lampshade for $2000 ;-),29

#8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Safari is a WASTE

by macpeep

Sunday January 12th, 2003 9:55 AM

Those are Australian dollars, right? :)

#9 Re: Re: Re: Safari is a WASTE

by robdogg

Sunday January 12th, 2003 11:21 AM

I guess I should have clarified. I deal with Macs fairly rarely, so I can't speak to the latest & greatest iMacs out there. I am talking about the original flat panel iMacs that came with original MacOS X. They did feel pretty sluggish particularly web browsing, even if I did get the Mhz a bit wrong. Even now whenever I browse CompUsa (local computer, the iMacs feel pretty sluggish.

#11 Re: Re: Re: Re: Safari is a WASTE

by Fireball1244

Sunday January 12th, 2003 11:42 AM

If you're using Internet Explorer, then yes, the browsing is very sluggish -- because Internet Explorer is garbage. That's Microsoft's fault, not Apple's.

And again with the facts: no flat-panel iMac shipped with the "original Mac OS X."

Since I have one of the original flat panel iMacs (the high end one, 800 MHz w/SuperDrive), I think my experiences would be quite a bit more informed than yours. This system was never "slow," and has only gotten snappier with subsequent OS upgrades.

#14 Safari is a [not] WASTE

by robdogg

Sunday January 12th, 2003 3:42 PM

Ok whichever release shipped with the original flat-panel iMacs was fairly sluggish when browsing. Yes, it was using IE, so what, Mozilla (at least at that time) was even slower.

So, the fact that Safari is out on the scene is a great thing - lets mac users enjoy browsing speed and load time that other platforms have enjoyed for a while. On Windows, (on my box at least) IE, Moz (preloaded) and Phoenix launch as fast as Notepad. On linux, Konq and Phoenix launch pretty fast too (though standard Phoenix build looks like crap with non-anti-aliased fonts). Mac seemed to be the odd one out.

#15 I think some people may be missing the point

by PaulB

Sunday January 12th, 2003 6:21 PM

"Safari is a waste". Not really. A year ago Apple needed a new browser since ac IE was not that great and who knew when Microsoft would produce a new version for the Mac. The internet is important and Apple knew if it was to compete it had to have a quality browser. Looking around at the various possibilities Omni, and Mozilla would have shown the most promise at the time. Omni did not cover all the bases in terms of standards. Mozilla/Netscape 6 (at the time) handled standards better, but this was right at the time thatMozilla for OS X was considering transitioning from the CFM build to the MachO and the Chimera project was still in the planning stages. It was risky for Apple to sit and wait for either of these two projects to produce the quality browser required for OS X. Apple wanted a browser that was "best of breed" and a year ago that wasn't Omni or Mozilla. Apple also wanted a browser which used a fully native GUI. At the time, it was felt that KHTML was the easiet project to tap into and accomplish their goal, even with the amount of work required to beef up the standards of KHTML.

I am of the opinion that it Apple was beginning their browser project today, they might have choosen either Mozilla for both their iMail and Safari projects or Chimera. I still believe that Apple may choose to use some software based on Gecko. From what I have heard their are many aspects of mozilla which are superior to Safari and iMail. I remeber that in the days of System 7 and System 8 Apple included both IE and Netscape on the instalation disks. I believe this might happen again once Mozilla completes the transition from the CFM to the MachO version for OS X.

Apple needed a replacement for IE and could not wait on the sidelines for this to happen. Sure they could have assisted the OS X Mozilla or chimera project. But they felt by so doing it would take longer to produce Safari. As Chimera improves in quality, I believe it possible that Apple might take another look at it. As Mozilla improves and the mail spam filters are turned on, apple will be watching. Safari may have been produced to fulfil a temporary void. If the Mozilla project continues to improve its browsers for OS X I expect Apple may seriously consider making some Gecko based browser its default browser or at least include it as an alternative to Safari on the instalation CD.

#18 2 main reasons Apple went with KHTML over Gecko

by mbokil

Sunday January 12th, 2003 9:37 PM

>>Apple also wanted a browser which used a fully native GUI. At the time, it was felt that KHTML was the easiet project to tap into and accomplish their >>goal, even with the amount of work required to beef up the standards of KHTML.

Yes, this is the first reason why Apple went with Safari over Gecko. The second reason is the clean API and smaller code base of KHTML which was desirable since browser running on OS X had previously been seen as slow running and KHTML was quick and fast to launch.

#16 Someone wake me up when...

by googolplex

Sunday January 12th, 2003 7:43 PM

Someone wake me up when a poster who isn't an idiot takes over.

No wonder Apple didn't choose gecko if this is how the community reacts to them.

#17 googoopie is right

by mbokil

Sunday January 12th, 2003 9:31 PM

Googoopie is right. I have used both Safari and Mozilla and Safari is a decent product; so isn't Mozilla. I stopped using KHTML or Konqueror on linux because it didn't have the best rendering of all the sites I went to. So in the regard Mozilla was ahead of KHTML. I heard that Apple made some tweaks to the KHTML code so it renders better now. That is cool since that code will be going back into open source.

Let's face it, nothing is perfect and while Mozllla is a decent, fast standards compliant browser it isn't a slim chicken either. There has been criticism of the Gecko engine that the software design was broken up into too many modules making it hard to follow the logical flow of the program. Mozilla also doesn't have as clean an API as KHTML in terms of accessing external toolkits like GTK or Aqua. I that is probably one of the greatest reasons Apple went with KHTML; they just didn't have the time or the inclination to sift through the larger Gecko code base to figure out what is going on. This is totally acceptable we all do this. When someone hand you an easy to understand API or a convoluted API which one would you chose?

So, all is not lost and neither browser is really better than the other. Mozilla could use the competition and possibly some of the code bloat will drop off as parts of the Gecko Layout are redesigned. It is vitually impossible to design a program perfect on the first try. Apple actually did the smart thing they went with Safari for a small footprint and clean API so they could just hook KHTML into Aqua without a lot of pain. If I had been designing Safari I would probably have done the same thing Apple did.

#19 Am I seeing things?

by googolplex

Sunday January 12th, 2003 9:42 PM

Weren't you the one who was argueing with me, saying mac users are idiots, and being totally unreasonable in the other article thread ;)? Now you agree with me and you posted without saying mac users are stupid.

Is this a different person?


#21 same person gogoopie

by mbokil

Monday January 13th, 2003 12:14 PM

same person gogoopie. I apologize, mac users are stupid. I was a mac user once but I got mad at Apple in the early 1990's when OS 7 reached an almost unuseable state with constant extension conflicts. I blamed Apple for killing my freelance company because of huge technical costs and lost time.

I think apple does some interesting innovation but I honestly don't see any technological advantage of the Mac. Apple just irritates me sometimes they are so trendy and brand oriented and worried about whether the computer cases have nice looking pin-striping while my linux box at home rarely has a cover on it. Users definately pay for Apple's branding costs and sometimes I feel that if some of their users new how easy it was to do what they were doing on a Linux KDE or Gnome box they would stop buying all that overpriced equipment. But hey, that is what capitalism is all about: if you can get someone to buy something for more because it looks great then all power to you.

#20 Chew on this

by robdogg

Monday January 13th, 2003 10:51 AM

Whichever one of you jokers claimed that Mac is just so fast and Mhz don't matter must have never read this:

#24 Re: Chew on this

by mbokil

Monday January 13th, 2003 2:57 PM

Of course speed matters. We know that and I think the Mac people know the truth on one level too, but psychologically it is difficult to admit for the mac people that they chose cool looking cases, and bright gel colors over a drab looking Intel or AMD speed demon box because you have to remember they are hooked on Apple branding/brainwashing which is almost as strong as nicotine addiction.

#22 Can everyone stop the mac bashing?

by googolplex

Monday January 13th, 2003 12:17 PM

Seriously, just let it be. I think people would rather you just ignore these mac stories and go along using whatever you want to. Let the mac users use their mac without all this crap from others.

Why do you people feel the need to get angry and troll whenever Macs come up? Its pathetic.

#23 Re: Can everyone stop the mac bashing?

by mbokil

Monday January 13th, 2003 2:53 PM

Okay, come on guys, can't , can't we all just get along and be friends. Let the mac people buy their overpriced, underpowered machines. God knows buying a lot of these pricey mac toys is good for the economy. Sorry, I couldn't resist one last jab. ;-)

#25 Ctrl+L

by belltower

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 10:29 AM

/me presses Ctrl+L... "Well will you look at that?" /me considers this as possible most significant event of 2003...