MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.3 Named Best Web Browser in PC World 21st Annual World Class Awards

Thursday June 5th, 2003

Adam Hauner wrote in to tell us that Mozilla 1.3 won the Best Web Browser award in PC World magazine's 21st Annual World Class Awards. Mozilla, featured in the Staying Connected section, is touted as "stable, speedy, standards-compliant, and full of useful features." As well as being available online, the article will also feature in the July issue of PC World, published on June 17th. A summary of the winners is listed in PC World Communications' press release.


#1 Unfortunately, Mozilla 1.3 is slow

by tseelee

Thursday June 5th, 2003 6:07 PM

Reply to this message

I hate to burst the bubble, though hopefully this will be just the first major award to come, but when any user goes to Mozilla to download 1.3, they'll find it to be slowwwww. Sure they may see that Firebrid announcement, but few average user will try a 0.6 release, even though it's GGGGGGREAT. Hopefully Firebird will get some award soon.

Meanwhile tell your friends one by one to switch. They'll need some cajoling. Tell them it's 6.7MB and give them the link to the web installer.

#2 MS security push BASHED, tho

by tseelee

Thursday June 5th, 2003 6:11 PM

Reply to this message

That's nice that MS gets thumbs-down like they have deserved for quite some time.

<http://www.pcworld.com/re…0,aid,110653,pg,17,00.asp>

#6 Re: Unfortunately, Mozilla 1.3 is slow

by bzbarsky

Thursday June 5th, 2003 11:18 PM

Reply to this message

> but few average user will try a 0.6 release, even though it's GGGGGGREAT

Yes, it is. For a 0.6 release. It's not quite good enough that I'd push it on actual users at this stage... Give it a few months, and we will see.

#8 Mozilla slow?

by GAThrawn

Friday June 6th, 2003 2:14 AM

Reply to this message

I hate to knock you here but one of the first comments many of my IE-using friends say when they first try browsing with Mozilla is how fast it seems. Now, no one pulls out a stopwatch and runs comparative page loading times, but the perception is definitley there. I know that Firebird defintely feels faster, but it does feel like a 0.6 release in some areas where Seamonkey feels more finished, so for the moment at least I'm still encouraging my IE using friends to use Seamonkey rather than Firebird, however I can definitely see this changing in the near future.

The next thing they seem to mention is that you always know when Mozilla's loading a page. A strange thing to say you might think, but try loading a large page over a slow connection in IE and you'll see the "throbber" stops throbbing for ages at times, there's no "loading..." text anywhere, and the loading progress bar at the bottom of the page can show up to 90% loaded when you're trying to connect to a server that doesn't even exist! Whereas Mozilla's throbber is always moving while the page is being loaded, the status text lets you know that something is happening, and the progress bar actually reflects something like the true progress loading the page! This is something that Netscape has always been good at, and Mozilla definitely took on board, unfortunately with Firebird's default layout leaving the throbber off the toolbar this is an advantage that we've got over IE that we're going to lose.

#11 Absolutely right

by leafdigital

Friday June 6th, 2003 5:00 AM

Reply to this message

Absolutely agreed. I don't have any problem with Mozilla speed at all except in swapping back into memory after I've been using another large application, which does suck, so I guess Mozilla memory footprint is a bit high. (Then again when you run JBuilder on a machine with only 256 MB RAM and try to run *anything* else, Mozilla or not, you are asking for trouble.)

I also thoroughly agree about not recommending Firebird yet. It's 0.6 and hasn't had the full weight of development behind it. Don't recommend a buggy browser - it doesn't improve the cause. Firebird crashed for me after 10 minutes of use, and that's an actual crash without mentioning the many rough edges: Mozilla crashes for me never. If you want to recommend Firebird you'll do everyone a service IMO if you wait for the first 'real' release under the Mozilla Browser name.

--sam

#19 I agree, I think Mozilla is pretty damn fast

by mlippert <mlippert255@yahoo.com>

Friday June 6th, 2003 9:54 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, as the other reply stated, the only slow things about Mozilla are start up (which I could care less about) and re-activating it when it's been idle for a while and you been running other stuff.

I haven't tried Firebird, but I can't say I'm happy to hear that it doesn't have the throbber. I agree, I really like that feedback that Mozilla is still loading something.

#20 Re: I agree, I think Mozilla is pretty damn fast

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday June 6th, 2003 10:02 AM

Reply to this message

"I haven't tried Firebird, but I can't say I'm happy to hear that it doesn't have the throbber."

Mozilla Firebird does have a throbber.

--Asa

#24 Re: I agree, I think Mozilla is pretty damn fast

by nero

Friday June 6th, 2003 11:57 AM

Reply to this message

Perhaps, but you need to customise your toolbar in order to see it. Should be default IMHO.

#25 Re: Re: I agree, I think Mozilla is pretty damn fastI will Sorely Mi

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Friday June 6th, 2003 1:15 PM

Reply to this message

The point and the problem are that you guys have trimmed down the defaults too far. The thobber is just one of many examples of this.

I dread the day when active development on Mozilla stops and Mozilla Firebird becomes the active trunk. All the needless time I will spend to re-add all the 2extensions and settings that should be in the default build.

#26 Re: Re: I agree, I think Mozilla is pretty damn fa

by GAThrawn

Friday June 6th, 2003 5:20 PM

Reply to this message

The problem is that as the throbber isn't on the toolbar by default many people, and especially newcomers to the Mozilla world will assume that it doesn't exist.

I realise that most of us here are geeky enough that the one of the first things we do is rearrange the toolbar icons to suit us, but I worked in desktop support for a large company for many years and believe me there are an awful lot of people out there either to scared to customize their software ("but the people who wrote _must_ know best", or "but what happens if I lose that button or break something when I move it around") or quite simply don't know that software can be custimized like this (you'd be surprised how often something as simple as showing someone how to show or hide one of Word's toolbars impresses people and makes them happy).

#3 My favourite PC World mag award was...

by rkl

Thursday June 5th, 2003 6:56 PM

Reply to this message

...this winner of the "Best Operating System":

<http://www.pcworld.com/re…/0,aid,110653,pg,6,00.asp>

"Stable, full-featured, and network-ready, Pro is the best of the Windows platforms."

To me, this implied that they didn't even bother looking at non-Windows platforms ! Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSE are actually all MORE "stable, full-featured and network-ready" than Windows XP Pro and you can even download them for free (SuSE needs an FTP server for installation) if you don't want/need the manual/CD-ROMs !

Anyway, nice to see that Mozilla is considered the best browser out there (no doubt on the Windows platform, since PC World seems to be ultra-Win-centric). Since PC World virtually ignored open source entirely in their awards, I half expected it to go to IE or Opera :-)

#4 Re: My favourite PC World mag award was...

by afree87 <afree87@netscape.net>

Thursday June 5th, 2003 7:25 PM

Reply to this message

"PC World" is code for "Windows World", in case you didn't know.

#7 Re: Re: My favourite PC World mag award was...

by Waldo

Friday June 6th, 2003 1:20 AM

Reply to this message

obviously. That's unbelievable that they would say "...best of the Windows platforms". If the category is called "Operating Systems" they should at least consider some of the other ones. I mean, what the hell..?!

#15 Re: Re: Re: My favourite PC World mag award was...

by mlefevre

Friday June 6th, 2003 7:51 AM

Reply to this message

it doesn't say they didn't consider anything else, but given their market, I can imagine they rejected other OSs out of hand.

I'll admit I haven't used Linux for a while, but I can see their point. Unless you're looking at Lindows or something, the average Joe user still isn't going to be able to figure out Linux. If you're out on the high street looking for a desktop PC, your choice of pre-installed OS is probably not going to be anything other than different Windows versions anyway. If you're upgrading from Windows 98 or 95 or something, then you can grab a Windows XP box off the shelf and get up and running with just a few mouse clicks that you don't need to understand. PC World have covered Linux previously - <http://www.pcworld.com/re…/0,aid,104693,pg,1,00.asp>

I guess the category could be named better "best consumer OS" or something, but if you know the PC World audience, you can figure out what kind of thing they're looking at...

#16 Linux vs Windows

by Waldo

Friday June 6th, 2003 9:36 AM

Reply to this message

Obviously you haven't used Linux in a while. Do me a favor and try installing Redhat 9. I just did last week. It's so easy it isn't funny. The thing practically installs itself. As for the UI, the bluecurve-based desktop ran about 4x faster than the Windows 98 installation I wiped when I installed it. And this was on a 300mhz laptop! The interface is fast and intuitive. Seriously, try it.

#18 Linux is easy?

by tack

Friday June 6th, 2003 9:51 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, RHL 9 is certainly easy to install and use for web browsing, email, etc. I think it's probably good for a certain class of users, either those in a corporate environment where there's IT staff to do maintenance, or those who never install third party software. For those who like to install the odd piece of software, like a new game or application, forget it. My mother happens to be in that latter class of users, and even though she's profusely fed up with Windows, I just can't recommend Linux.

Well, perhaps Lindows one-click-install is on the right track, but I haven't looked at that.

#28 Yeah, that was my point

by Waldo

Saturday June 7th, 2003 3:09 AM

Reply to this message

You said: " You can't compare the usability of a '98 OS with a '03 OS - that's no way to do a sales pitch...Hell your laptop probably wouldn't run XP!"

That was my point. An '03 OS ran MUCH BETTER on a '98 machine than the 98 Windows software that came with it. In other words, modern Linux scaled back to run more efficiently on an old peice of hardware much better than the original software. And as you point out, the new XP probably wouldn't run at all.

W

PS-- Of course Mac OS X is best ;) The computer I installed Linux on used to belong to my dad. I bought him an iBook and he's never been happier. That's how I ended up with his old laptop.

#21 Re: Linux vs Windows

by Mark_Watkins <markwatkins@eircom.net>

Friday June 6th, 2003 10:07 AM

Reply to this message

You wiped Windows 98 before installing Linux - of course you thought Linux was better. Did anyone tell you Win98 is crap and outdated? You can't compare the usability of a '98 OS with a '03 OS - that's no way to do a sales pitch.

I have run both Windows XP and Linux in recent years, and heartily recommend Mac OS X ;) Seriously though the modern Linux distributions compare very well against Windows for usability, and comparing against WinXP you'd want to add a bit more to the 4x speed improvement! Hell your laptop probably wouldn't run XP!

I have installed Linux a few times over the years and have always run back to Windows - if only for the apps but also for usability. With Mozilla, OpenOffice, Eclipse, and Mono I can finally make the transition and am now looking to move most of my home computing away from Windows - to FreeBSD or Linux, and OS X. Sadly the company I work for pay me good money to develop web sites running off IIS and .NET or I'd try to change over there too.

#27 Re: Re: Re: Re: My favourite PC World mag award wa

by GAThrawn

Friday June 6th, 2003 5:28 PM

Reply to this message

"I guess the category could be named better "best consumer OS" or something, but if you know the PC World audience, you can figure out what kind of thing they're looking at..."

What about Macs?

The Mac OSX is even more obviously a consumer OS (I'm not denying its not powerful or that a lot of geeks seem to love it but...) in many ways its even more of a consumer OS than WinXP.

#12 good choice...

by tve

Friday June 6th, 2003 6:01 AM

Reply to this message

besides it's stability (I had 2 crashes in what? 15 months? or whenever it was released..), it is also "User-Friendly". Therefore it's a good choice, even though I expected OSX (never used it) to be the "best (hyped) OS"...

but of course, they chose Windows as best OS and are all a bunch of "ultra-Win-centric" Gates gurus... sure!

I'm wondering who's the real "ultra-*-centric" here....

#22 Re: My favourite PC World mag award was...

by hoodedone0 <hoodedone@gmail.com>

Friday June 6th, 2003 10:28 AM

Reply to this message

Linux is still way over the head of the average user. Until the average idiot has a chance of being able to figure it out, it most certainly doesn't wouldn't win the award.

Please note that though I currently use Windows, I believe Linux is a great OS, and as soon as a few of my idiosnycratic concerns are taken care of (and I get off my lazy rear) I will be switching. However, to say that Linux is currently the OS for the masses is ridiculous.

#23 Excuse my crappy grammar...

by hoodedone0 <hoodedone@gmail.com>

Friday June 6th, 2003 10:30 AM

Reply to this message

...I had rephrased that sentence a few times, and apparently forgot to take out the old "doesn't."

#5 good news!

by pcabellor

Thursday June 5th, 2003 7:58 PM

Reply to this message

These are good news.

PC World is on of the most popular consumer oriented IT magazines, so this is an excellent way to let the masses know about Mozilla.

And really, as much as I like Mozilla Firebird 0.6, it lacks some critical features for consumers (like an appropriate installer) that it is better (correctly as is in pre 1.0 version) ignored. Time will come for awards.

#9 PCWorld praising Moz - what a laugh!

by antroy

Friday June 6th, 2003 3:40 AM

Reply to this message

It's amazing that a company (a *computer retailer* no less) who is praising Mozilla as being the best and most standards compliant browser still can't produce a website that will work on it!!

#10 Re: PCWorld praising Moz - what a laugh!

by antroy

Friday June 6th, 2003 3:43 AM

Reply to this message

Whoops - scrap that. I was looking at <http://www.pcworld.co.uk> not .com which appears to be a different company.

#13 Re: Re: PCWorld praising Moz - what a laugh!

by DJGM2002

Friday June 6th, 2003 6:16 AM

Reply to this message

Indeed. PCWorld.co.uk is the site for a big computer retail chain in the UK. IIRC, there's an ongoing bug report filed under Tech Evangelism @ BugZilla regarding a problem with the PCWorld.co.uk website.

#14 Re: Re: Re: PCWorld praising Moz - what a laugh!

by AdamCollard

Friday June 6th, 2003 7:03 AM

Reply to this message

#17 come on people, let your hair down and celebrate

by morg

Friday June 6th, 2003 9:36 AM

Reply to this message

Vic-to-reeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

#29 You're right.

by tseelee

Saturday June 7th, 2003 4:55 PM

Reply to this message

Let's cccccccelebrate!