MozillaZine

Chilean Site Compares Mozilla, Mozilla Firebird, IE and Opera

Thursday November 13th, 2003

Fenix writes: "The Chilean website www.eltallervirtual.cl has reviewed four browser for the Windows platform: IE, Mozilla, Mozilla Firebird and Opera. Mozilla Firebird wins the battle, but both Mozilla and Mozilla Firebird showed relatively slow loading of pages from the cache. Does anybody know why?"

The review, which focuses mostly on performance metrics and test results, is in Spanish. An automated Google translation is available.


#1 re:

by wde

Thursday November 13th, 2003 8:36 PM

Reply to this message

what's up with the topless chick in all of the browser windows? couldn't they lay down the porn long enough to do a browser test?

#6 So, that's a "bad" thing then...

by _ShadowHawk

Friday November 14th, 2003 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

Not every country has its roots in puritanism. You'd rather see a test pattern?

#13 re:

by wde

Friday November 14th, 2003 3:50 PM

Reply to this message

I'm an atheist, so don't feed me that conservative christian b.s. I just thought it was a little out of place.

#15 Re: re:

by mlefevre

Friday November 14th, 2003 5:59 PM

Reply to this message

The site shown in their screenshots is their own site, eltallervirtual.cl, by the way.

#18 Re: Re: re:

by offmdan

Saturday November 15th, 2003 4:46 AM

Reply to this message

Don't see why we need to use nudity to sell things.

I always love it when atheists declare themselves so. At least they believe in something! :)

TBird has proven as far as I've tested on my PC (Windows98SE) to be the quickest. Even on dial-up it beats IE6 anytime! Don't need anyone to convince me on that part.

#7 Re: topless chick

by pointwood

Friday November 14th, 2003 8:44 AM

Reply to this message

Most of Europe have a more relaxed attitude about nudity and such.

Personally (as a person living here), I don't mind that at all ;)

#23 Re: Re: topless chick

by jjn1056

Monday November 17th, 2003 9:00 AM

Reply to this message

Harmless or not, my company is blocking the website because of it, so unless the nudity is an important part of the article content, I would greatly prefer that it be left out, so I could actually read the article. My company blocks google translation as well, since it can be uses as a way of getting around block site policies.

Not being about to see the article, I have no idea of the context, or the value of the picture in terms of content. Maybe the pic is a vital part of the article? Hard to see how that is possible.

Anyway, if nudity in advertising is so harmless, how come they are almost always pics of skinny young girls? Since I can't see the actual pic, I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet hard money it's not a topless granny :) Showing us stuff like this always makes me think of the way the Romans controled the population, with spectacles that glutted the senses without touching the soul...

#19 You got that wrong ...

by johann_p

Saturday November 15th, 2003 7:21 AM

Reply to this message

first, she is not topless (look closely at <http://www.eltallervirtua…width=1024&height=768>) and secondly, even if she were topless a harmless pic like this would probably go under "porn" only in a Taleban-controlled country.

#22 re:

by wde

Monday November 17th, 2003 1:34 AM

Reply to this message

If you are going to be an ass, you can at least learn how to spell. "Taleban"? Secondly, there is a difference between hard-core and soft-core porn. I didn't say there was a money shot.

#2 Why?

by Wellander

Thursday November 13th, 2003 8:46 PM

Reply to this message

Hi, Why compare a browser?

#3 re:

by wde

Thursday November 13th, 2003 8:52 PM

Reply to this message

do you want to explain that?

#4 Mozilla slower at going back to previous pages

by schapel

Thursday November 13th, 2003 11:11 PM

Reply to this message

"Both Mozilla and Mozilla Firebird showed relatively slow loading of pages from the cache. Does anybody know why?"

Of course! We've known for over three years that Opera is much faster than Mozilla at rendering a page when you click the Back button, and we've had good ideas about why that is. Just take a look at bug 38486 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38486> Please don't spam that bug with useless comments as a certain Bugzilla user has rudely done, however.

#9 Re: Mozilla slower at going back to previous pages

by an_mo

Friday November 14th, 2003 11:20 AM

Reply to this message

There is a $1000 price reward for whomever fixes that bug. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…show_bug.cgi?id=38486#c56>

#10 Re: Re: Mozilla slower at going back to previous p

by FrodoB

Friday November 14th, 2003 12:31 PM

Reply to this message

By that spammer, no less. :)

#12 Re: Re: Mozilla slower at going back to previous p

by bzbarsky

Friday November 14th, 2003 1:15 PM

Reply to this message

Let me just say that in my opinion $1000 is not worth the trouble for that bug unless you actually want to fix it to start with (that is, the amount of work required is far above what I would charge $1000 for).

#14 Re: Re: Re: Mozilla slower at going back to previo

by mlefevre

Friday November 14th, 2003 5:47 PM

Reply to this message

Not to mention that the $1000 is on condition that the fix doesn't go into Firebird. Given that the code is shared between Mozilla and Firebird, it's not even possible to meet the conditions unless Mozilla.org changes their policies, or the author unlawfully breaches copyright.

#16 Not quite...

by adipose

Friday November 14th, 2003 11:51 PM

Reply to this message

He only said:

> If it is fixed within 1 month, and as long as *the person who fixes it* doesn't do it for Firebird for at least > 6 months

Therefore, if one person fixes it, and another puts the fix into Firebird after, the first person can still collect the $1000. I'm not sure if this is what he meant, but it is what he said. And besides, it wouldn't be my fault if a fix I wrote (hypothetically) were ported to the other application, would it?

-Dan

#17 Re: Not quite...

by bzbarsky

Saturday November 15th, 2003 12:09 AM

Reply to this message

I don't think you understand.... Firebird and SeaMonkey use the same back/forward code in nsDocShell.cpp. That means that the moment you check it into SeaMonkey it's also in Firebird. It's not possible to add it to one without the other.

Hence the person who fixes it in SeaMonkey would in fact automatically also fix it in Firebird.

#20 No, I understand

by adipose

Saturday November 15th, 2003 4:47 PM

Reply to this message

But the person who offered the money obviously didn't. In any case, I'm sure I could find a way to fix it in one w/o fixing it in the other. Perhaps a #ifndef MOXPHOENIX or something?

-Dan

#21 Re: No, I understand

by bzbarsky

Saturday November 15th, 2003 11:14 PM

Reply to this message

Good luck getting reviews with that... ;)

#5 very superficial

by bandido

Friday November 14th, 2003 6:39 AM

Reply to this message

I read the comparison (in Spanish) and it is very superficial. The most interesting thing they found was that Opera is more compliant in CSS2 standards than Mozilla and Firebird. Cache performance or slow performance to be more exact is not a new thing for Mozilla browsers

#8 Re: very superficial

by bzbarsky

Friday November 14th, 2003 9:20 AM

Reply to this message

> The most interesting thing they found was that Opera is more compliant in CSS2 standards > than Mozilla and Firebird.

It's all in the set of tests you do... If you run both browsers on my tests, for example, we do better (largely because there were bugs filed and fixed for almost all those tests).

For all practical purposes, the two browsers have very close support of CSS2.

#11 Re: very superficial

by galio

Friday November 14th, 2003 12:58 PM

Reply to this message

I have read it in spanish too (¡¿porqué escribo esto en inglés entonces?!), and also found it is *very* superficial... All what is there is a simple feature comparison, whith some strange results... But, at least, they said some important things, like remarking that if M$IE loads faster than Moz or other browsers in Windoze, it's because it is preloaded with the sort of OS.