MozillaZine

Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

Monday August 30th, 1999

Apparently there is a bit of dissension in the Mac ranks over the state of Mozilla on their platform. According to one post at MacDiscussion, Mozilla is called "less than desirable in terms of the resources it uses and the general speed of the browser". Another post describes an average start time of 3.5 minutes (it should be noted that this is on a slower machine - a 180Mhz 604e). This is surprising to me, because this isn't the case on the Windows platform. If Mozilla actually is slow on the Mac, does anyone know why? Are these issues being addressed? I'm usually wary of posting comments like these so early in the development process, but these experiences run contrary to my experience with Mozilla, and I'm curious to know if others have the same issues on the Mac.

Thanks to George for this news.


#1 Mozilla start time in the Mac

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 7:19 AM

Reply to this message

It seems that every build that I have tested, up to and including M10, is extremely slow starting up, well over 1 minute on a G3/300 with sufficient memory. At first, it appears as if the whole system has crashed.

Secondly, since I have a DSL connection which requires auto-configuration, I cannot test any build on the Web, since the builds do not support auto-configuration.

Hopefully things will get better?

#2 Not slow

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 7:23 AM

Reply to this message

I haven't seen this fabled slowneed w/ M10. This is on a 604e/180 as described above. Well, the startup isn't much slower than I've seen under either NT or Linux.

#3 Mozilla isn't Mac-like

by andrew <andrew@anthro.fsu.edu>

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 7:28 AM

Reply to this message

I've been trying out the nightly builds and Milestones for a while now and Mozilla just doesn't feel like a Mac browser. I understand it's a work in progress, but it is slow, no doubt about that. The windows and dialouges are not very Mac-ish and really feels like a poorly ported program right now.

-Andrew

#11 Mozilla isn't Mac-like -- YET!

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 9:16 AM

Reply to this message

Keep in mind that the windows and dialogs arent very any-OS-like yet. This is going to change. Remember that windows, dialogs, pop-ups, trees, chrome, etc. it's all customizable with XUL. Hopefully web designers will take this tool (that was designed specifically with them in mind) and OS-ify each build. Right now the focus is on finishing out the functionality and crushing bugs.

#4 Very slow with Virtual Memory on my iMac

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 7:34 AM

Reply to this message

M9 Release is very slow on my 32Mb RAM iMac. This is the first version that I'm trying on a Mac. All other versions are tested and evaluated at work on a Windows NT 450 Mhz Pentium II.

The current Mac build takes 12Mb of precious RAM! Hence, my HD disk is spinning like a devil!

Yes, I know, I need more memory!

- Jacques

#20 how does this compare...

by mattdm <mattdm@mattdm.org>

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 2:31 PM

Reply to this message

How does this compare to current-generation browsers? Right now, Netscape 4.6 is happily eating about 30MB on my Linux box (and I'm not really doing anything fancy)

#44 how does this compare...

by Anon

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 7:48 AM

Reply to this message

Hi!

With Communicator 4.6 I still need 12 Mb of RAM, my HD is still spinning like the devil... BUT, the application is usable and a lot more responsive.

#5 Work in progress

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

I work on a pentium 166 and a beige g3/300 at work. I have downloaded all milestones for win98 and mac as they were released and must concur. It is definitely slower on the mac.

I also don't think it is far enough along in the development phase to critique the look and feel as being "not mac enough." Give it time.

#6 Its unfinished!

by Ben_Goodger

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 7:42 AM

Reply to this message

(this is to the articles linked, not the above posters)

I get sick of people whining about the performance of an unfinished browser. Mozilla needs to display a notice on starting up saying "if you're the type whose views of Mozilla will be forever based on the perfomance of this pre-alpha developer release, please click here to close".

Recent builds of Mozilla on Win32 have leaked huge amounts of memory, bringing my (relatively ample) system to a grinding halt, and yet I do not lose faith in the validity of the product. Its not a beta, its not a release candidate, its not even an alpha. Its being actively constructed. Don't tell me all software projects are fast loading, non-memory-leaking or good looking DURING CONSTRUCTION.

Ugh.

#7 Its unfinished!

by Ben_Goodger

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 7:47 AM

Reply to this message

(I also understand that the articles mention that they know that the Mozilla releases are dev. ones, the reason *I* whine is that they still make the complaint, even with their understanding of Moz's pre-alpha status)

#8 These comments were *asked* for

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 8:27 AM

Reply to this message

"I'm curious to know if others have the same issues on the Mac."

Hence, the 'whining' you speak of is justified. Stop yelling at users who are only trying to help.

Regards, Mark

#9 These comments were *asked* for

by Ben_Goodger

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 8:37 AM

Reply to this message

saying that there are performance issues is justified, yes. its even very helpful, especially if these performance issues are unique and reported to the developers.

However writing doom-gloom pieces saying that Moz better shape up (when its most obvious that it WILL) aren't helpful, other than for "any publicity is good publicity" purposes. The articles also gave me the impression that they'd lost [at least a little] faith in Moz, and wanted other browsers to appear to take on IE, as if Moz was dead or dying, and IE was going to take over: "Let's just all hope that someone will pull together something for all of us Mac users so that we don't have to fall under the hand of Bill."

Furthermore, the noses of the developers are most certainly the grindstone, the developers working on Mozilla need no encouragement in that regard.

#45 Yes, but why so sensative?

by Anon

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 9:27 AM

Reply to this message

"The articles also gave me the impression that they'd lost [at least a little] faith in Moz"

Why so sensative? Why is faith an issue? The developers of a project should have faith in it, not users. Hopefully faith will not be a requirement in using the final product.

#17 I wrote the article you Question :)

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 12:30 PM

Reply to this message

Ben:

I am not knocking the hard work that has been going into Mozilla, I am questioning the Mac ports progress.

I have also run the Linux version, and it is leaps and bounds faster than the Mac version, even on a much slower machine.

The point I am trying to make is that if they want to get into the browser race on the *Macintosh* they will have to pull up their socks on the effort. It seems that as usual the Mac port gets features last, gets optimised last, and if this remains the case will end up last.

As for pre release software, I am very comfortable with that fact, but 3.5 minutes to launch is still not very encouraging. I know optimisation will come eventually, but it still launches in a little over a minute on my poor old Pentium 133 Linux server...

Mark Guertin Writer/Webmaster MacDiscussion.com

#24 I wrote the article you Question :)

by Ben_Goodger

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 3:28 PM

Reply to this message

"Port" probably isn't a good word to use for this software, since it is almost completely XP. Using UI as an example - there's actually no OS that it matches. It doesn't match Windows, or any X toolkit I can think of. Mac users may certainly not be alone if they think Moz looks a little different, (although Windows and *nix users have probably had more experience with morphing UI standards)

The builds need not be encouraging. As Mozilla.org trumpets, they may cause all manner of havoc (although usually they don't). They're for developers like myself who want to build stuff on/with it, or for people wanting to test for bugs. A useful practice after finding a slow Mac speed would be to go to bugzilla and file a bug on it.

#35 Bug already done and marked as duplicate

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 8:42 PM

Reply to this message

Ben:

First thing I did was log on to the bug tracker and file one. It is a duplicate from a LONG time ago. I didn't keep the bug number handy...

Also my comparison for speed was against the Linux version especially...had them side by side on my Mac and Slackware 4 box...and the slackware won hands down on a much slower machine. a P-133 w/ 32 megs ram against a PPC 604e 180 w/96 megs of ram.

Anyways, I am a negative person. This is my way of encouragement. I find it often gets better results than "The Mac version is ok, but it needs some work."

Mark

#37 Bug already done and marked as duplicate

by Ben_Goodger

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 10:39 PM

Reply to this message

oh. and I'm an optimist, as you may have gathered :)

#10 Hmmmmm......

by SomeSmartAss

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 9:05 AM

Reply to this message

I just showed the M9 release to a collegue at work here, and he had the same complaint... (seems realy slow..) And I'm running a Wintel version.

I think this is indicative of what's happening in general. There are a bunch of us "advocates" who espouse the virtues of Mozilla, trying to convert the unwashed masses to its legion; but we don't quite understand what the complaints are about, since we've been following its progress for so long.

This is an extremely open project, thats realy starting to pick up steam and hype. As it does, more people are downloading releases/builds, without the "advantage" of having seen earlier builds, that weren't so nice. Sure, the browser is light years better than the first gecko developer release, but to a new user, the code is still slow, the code does leak memory, and the front end is a little kludgy.

If you want to impress them, make 'em play with an old M4 build for a bit, then get them to try M9/M10.

So to we, the appostles of Moz, take these nay-sayers comments with a grain of salt, as they too, upon seeing the eventual optimizing and tweeking, will learn to love the lizard as well.

And to the nay-sayers... If you want a better browser, go ahead and build one... By the time you've even figured out how to get <TABLE> tags to work properly, Mozilla will be pre-alpha'ing their second release.

#12 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 10:38 AM

Reply to this message

My experience is the same -- Mozilla builds are extremely slow on the Macintosh. And that's on a G3/350. On a 604/150 I thought it had crashed and was surprised when it popped up 5 minutes later.

#13 Slower than, well, slow.

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 11:24 AM

Reply to this message

I've got a B&W G3/300, and it takes a good minute and a half of total innactivity (it looks like it has crashed in every respect) for pretty much every version to start up. I saw a note that one of the versions was some great percent faster, but this must've only applied to the PC versions, because it got no speed increase on the Mac that I could notice. Every action is slow once the browser has started up, and even loading and drawing pages is slow (and I've got a cable modem!) What is with this?

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Mac needs an alternative. You can't need an alternative to something that doesn't exist yet. If it performs at release as it does now, yes, an alternative will be in order. But I think it would suffice to remind developers that the browser has a version on the Mac, and it is so slow as to be unusable, and needs optomisation.

#14 Hey, it's development!

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 11:49 AM

Reply to this message

Now, it's not that slow in Linux. But I'm still not surprised that it is slow. It's a developmental version, and it spits out debugging code and comments with every action. It's not surprising that it's slow when it writes out to the console information on every action it's doing.

#47 Hey, it's development!

by Anon

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 3:09 PM

Reply to this message

I find it very slow in Linux - about 3 or 4 times slower than Netscape 4.61. Unusably slow...

but I am on a P75 w/ 40 megs of memory....

#15 Startup slow, browser not

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 11:52 AM

Reply to this message

I have run many builds on my G3/350 and the startup is slow. The first time I run a build it is quite slow, but after that the launch is at least 2-3 time as fast. IMO the M8 build was the best *so far*.

Once running I find that it renders websites easily as fast as NN and much faster than IE4.5.

As for the 'look and feel'. M9 'feels' like a UNIX browser. It redraws the contents of the screen as you resize a window, which results in a very jerky feeling. If you do not like this 'feature' as it has been called, please see bugzilla bug #12672 and let them know how you feel.

Chris

#16 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by Waldo

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 12:28 PM

Reply to this message

Yes it's very slow. Startup is about a minute on my G3/233 for the first time while it builds whatever files it's building on the first run. After that it's slightly faster to startup.

the mac alternative is, of course, icab (<http://www.icab.com>, I think). And then there's the new ie5.0 engine, which is supposed to be really fast (and standards compliant) on mac...

Aside from the overall sluggishness (and NO I'm not complaining, just sharing), the mac version has trouble rendering MANY pages, including mozillazine's front page. (These are the milestone releases I'm talkin' about, not the daily builds...)

I'm sure these things will be addressed... Even the slow startup time would appear faster with a splashscreen and startup bar to let you know something's happening... But I can't help but think the win32 version is screamingly fast in comparison...

W

#18 Fast nightly build

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 12:53 PM

Reply to this message

Hi,

It is obvious to me that mozilla needs to do a nightly build which is optimized without any debugging enabled so that people can get some idea of how fast/slow it really is. The theoretical argument that "this is prealpha" does not help psychologically.

People could download both. Also the "Do you really want to do this to your computer" dialog could include something about how slow this version is and why!

#21 Fast nightly build

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 2:35 PM

Reply to this message

removing debugging code will make things smaller, but not really speed it up significantly. what needs to happen is more optimization.

#19 Comparisons with Netscape 4?

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 1:52 PM

Reply to this message

I have noticed that my cvs builds are slightly slower to use than normal Nav 4, even with --disable-debug --enable-optimize in configure; someone else asked my why Mozilla was slow and I had to reply that I hoped it was due to a large amount of debugging stuff (even though I turned it off). My system is Linux 2.2.12 with AMD K6-2 300, 64Mb RAM and 128Mb swapfile.

Bearing in mind we're only a little over half-distance (aiui) this is discouraging to say the least. I can only hope that the current crop of bugs is what is causing what is undeniably a good technology from being suitably fast enough for all potential users to switch from their current browser to Mozilla.

James Green

#22 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by zontar

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 3:17 PM

Reply to this message

M9 start time (until the Mozilla window appears) for me is 22 seconds on a 166 MMX Pentium with 32 megs RAM and 60% of system resources free before booting the program.

#23 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by zontar

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 3:23 PM

Reply to this message

Whoops, forgot to mention that's on Windows 95.

BTW, time to load remote pages on a 33.6 is about the same as for MSIE 4 or 5 or NN 4. Remote pages without much JS are definitely rendering faster for me with M9.

What sort of startup times are people encountering with the Linux versions?

Cheers.

#28 Mac G3/350 10 seconds

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 5:10 PM

Reply to this message

My BW G3/350, 192MB RAM starts M9 in 10 seconds. The first time was way longer, but 10s is not too bad at this point in the game.

Chris

ps M8 loads in about 7-8 seconds

#29 M10 6.5 seconds

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 5:28 PM

Reply to this message

The latest M10 gave 24 seconds for the initial start and then about 6-7 seconds for the subsequent start.

Start defined as the time when the window appears. It may take an additional 1-2 seconds to load MozZine.

Chris

#25 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by kimon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 3:30 PM

Reply to this message

I too have to agree that the Mac version is slow at start-up. If you check the latest M10 however, there is a start-up screen which alerts the user to the fact that the browser is in the process of loading.

I had thought that maybe it was because of the shear number of files that Mozilla uses on startup, that the mac (with its slower file system) was just going to be slower. Any ideas if that is it?

#26 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by Lynggaard <Lynggaard@netscape.net>

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 3:53 PM

Reply to this message

that could be it, because as I know mozilla loads stuff at startup that isn't even needed at first. e.g. mail/news is loaded (bootstraped) at startup, even though you might never use the Messenger part

#27 is there a need for another browser?

by beg <beg1@netscape.net>

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 4:33 PM

Reply to this message

What's would be the point for Apple to start or fund another browser?

I think Mozilla will become the standard. We'll see KDE throw away it's browser and just use Mozilla and i believe Gnome has said they plan to use Mozilla. Apple should help work with Mozilla and integrate it into the OS, but allow users to exchange browsers if you want.

#31 is there a need for another browser?

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 6:17 PM

Reply to this message

That's an absolutely wonderful philosophy - use it because it's a standard. You don't need to develop anything else. If there's one solution, then why waste time with another program that does the same thing?

This morning, I heard of this program called Internet Explorer. I hear it's a cross-platform, stanards-compliant browser. And, by gawd, so's Mozilla! Well I'll be! I guess we'll just have to cancel the project, folks. You can all go home now.

#38 well..

by beg <beg1@netscape.net>

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 11:06 PM

Reply to this message

Anon i have always considered you a MS fan. Probably a Mac or Webmaster that has some sort of hate for Netscape, but want to act like you support Mozilla..

Anyhow, think of it this way.

Once Netscape5.0 is released why should Apple fund a new browser? They'll just take N5 and add features to it if they want.

If the government made roads from LA to New York, why would a private corporation make it's own roads when the government built roads that work and are free?

Ok, maybe that's not a good example, but i think it's pointless for MS to keep working on IE.

Microsoft should just take the main source code of Mozilla and add their own features (never happen, tho). If they think Mozilla does a bad job at a certain thing then they can update it, but most of the time Mozilla is going to do more than a great job at rendering code.

A browser by the people for the people!

Internet Explorer isn't open source, therfor there is a need for another browser. But because N5.0 is open source then it's the worlds browser.

Financial it doesn't make since to fund another browser in my opinion when one is offered which is free and open source and will work great. I'm not economics major, but i think it just make sense to use Netscape5 over funding a new browser

#50 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by BlueGecko8

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 4:10 PM

Reply to this message

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always throught Anon is the name for an anonymous poster, not a person. Right, MozAdmin?

#51 Correct. All anonymous users are Anon (N/T)

by mozineAdmin

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 4:36 PM

Reply to this message

#39 well..

by beg <beg1@netscape.net>

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 11:06 PM

Reply to this message

Anon i have always considered you a MS fan. Probably a Mac or Webmaster that has some sort of hate for Netscape, but want to act like you support Mozilla..

Anyhow, think of it this way.

Once Netscape5.0 is released why should Apple fund a new browser? They'll just take N5 and add features to it if they want.

If the government made roads from LA to New York, why would a private corporation make it's own roads when the government built roads that work and are free?

Ok, maybe that's not a good example, but i think it's pointless for MS to keep working on IE.

Microsoft should just take the main source code of Mozilla and add their own features (never happen, tho). If they think Mozilla does a bad job at a certain thing then they can update it, but most of the time Mozilla is going to do more than a great job at rendering code.

A browser by the people for the people!

Internet Explorer isn't open source, therfor there is a need for another browser. But because N5.0 is open source then it's the worlds browser.

Financial it doesn't make since to fund another browser in my opinion when one is offered which is free and open source and will work great. I'm no economics major, but i think it just make sense to use Netscape5 over funding a new browser

#43 Not cross-platform, not standards-compliant

by Anon

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 7:39 AM

Reply to this message

Except that Internet Explorer is not cross-platform (Why can't I run it under Linux?) and not standards-compliant (no support for HTML 2, 3.2, 4, or CSS-1).

-smileyy

#49 Not cross-platform, not standards-compliant

by Anon

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 4:06 PM

Reply to this message

I know that IE isn't standards-compliant and cross-platform, and I actually support the project whole-heartedly and do bug reports regularly. I was just trying to make a point. My regular browsers on my Mac are currently Netscape 4.61 and iCab 1.6 (I confess to using IE 4.5 from time to time, but try to avoid it do to its slow rendering and the fact I have an anti-M$ streak), but I will be switching over to Mozilla once it gets finished (and assuming the speed problems are ironed out, though they haven't been nearly so bad for me as has been reported).

#30 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 6:01 PM

Reply to this message

It starts up slow on my G3/233. I think M7 started up faster than M8 or M9. The first time I opened it and configured it took a minute and a half. Since then it takes about 30 seconds to load.

I also couldn't click on any of the links or enter the form data here with Mozilla M9.

As for the Windows look, I think it is the CSS. There's alot of elements that use the outset value and that is everywhere in Windows and nowhere on the Mac.

I'm not complaining, just 'splaining.

--Luddite

#32 Give it time...

by masri <masri@nolex.com>

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 6:32 PM

Reply to this message

Optimization of code usually assumes there's code to optimize. Let's just give the developers some time. I honestly believe things are going to get great towards the end of the year.

Please, folks, don't judge the project until at least the 3rd or 4th beta release. We're not even at alpha yet! Right now, these pre-alphas are out for early adopters, website developers (who want to see the new features in action on their own sites) and bug wranglers.

I'm seeing tangible benefits between releases. For example, Apple's own website would render completely wrong in M8, but there are very minor errors in M9 (see <http://www.apple.com> - the pieces of the table displaying the computer don't exactly line up). Also, M8 wouldn't even bother trying to render my.netscape.com, but M9 renders it quite well (crashed when I tried to login with my personalized NetCenter page, but that's another story).

It's getting a LOT better, folks. If you have enough time to worry about the builds and don't think things are happening fast enough, then go here.

<http://www.mozilla.org/get-involved.html>

- Adam

#33 Alternative?

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 7:10 PM

Reply to this message

Why not take the effort you would spend in coding a new browser and determine the problem with Mozilla? I haven't seen anyone actually state the technical reason it is slow. Is it a XPCOM problem? Is MacOS absolutely horribly managing the hardware? Something else?

Saying "Mozilla is slow" doesn't mean anything. Use the source Luke.

#34 Why just Mac?

by jmissig <x-virge@shafe.com>

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 8:26 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, the code is slow right now. Yes, it is development.

Why did you pick just Mac? Yeah, Mozilla does run at a nice speed in Windows, but in Linux it's just about unbearable (I've had cases where a CSS A:hover took about 5 seconds before it appeared... I can give you an URL with an example if you'd like). You probably haven't heard many complaints from Linux users because we still don't have a good, fast browser (Before you say Lynx, let me add: that supports more than just HTML). The Netscape 4 port is downright aweful. There are tons of bugs, and they statically linked it to Motif, which isn't just ugly, it's HUGE.

So, don't just complain about the Mac version, get ALL OF THEM to run faster.

#48 Why just Mac?

by Anon

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 3:13 PM

Reply to this message

Amen. I tried the Linux version once on my poor Pentium and it just about rolled over and died it was so slow...

#36 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by Anon

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 9:28 PM

Reply to this message

For those of you who think IE 5.0 on the Mac is going to bring speed enhancements - think again. You're dead wrong. The one thing more than any other holding up the IE 5.0 project at this point is performance - as recently as July, it was nearly twice as slow as IE 4.5 (which is in turn slower than Communicator 4.x). Even worse, I hear they're changing the IE UI to be more Windows-like (especially in OE).

Yes, the Mozilla browser is currently frustratingly slow on the Mac. (I've launched it on a Performa 6200 and it seemed to take about as long as it does for a Wintel PC to boot Windows 98 and then launch IE.) But c'mon, folks, it ain't gonna ship like that. Believe me, there are PLENTY of Mac aficionados inside Netscape that are working as well as they know how on improving performance and shipping a great Mac OS browser. And hey! - it's open source, so if you can pitch in, do it!

As far as the UI goes, well, if you don't like it, learn some XUL and create your own skin. Mozilla are providing the tools - it's up to all of us to use them to create that killer Mac-like UI. OK?

(I'll be working on a skin for Communicator 5.0 that replicates the wacky kids-style Appearance that was to have shipped with Copland, myself.)

#40 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by Ben_Goodger

Tuesday August 31st, 1999 11:17 PM

Reply to this message

you're right, and that's the beauty of XUL. even if you make changes that are some personal fetish, and they don't go into the product, you can distribute them from your site after release!

what's more, the widgets are either system native or ass-ugly right now, but the finished ones (see the gfx widgets page at mozilla.org/xpfe) look respectably Mac like. (I dont think windows/*nix users will care, software for both systems tends to be a mix of different design themes). The XP widgets look to be a definite improvement over Windows ones, and (IMO) as pretty as Mac ones, while being easily identifiable.

#42 IE 5 speed

by Anon

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 7:14 AM

Reply to this message

Well, running a very recent build of IE 5 I can tell you that it is a lot faster than 4.5 and a lot more stable.

I am no M$ fan here, in fact quite the opposite. But if those hacks can do it, I am very ineterested to see what Mozilla can do in the end.

I just want a fast, standards compliant browser that doesnt crash my machine.

As for Netscape 4.5 (and .6), it is absolutely painful on my machine. Slow, crashes, memory leaks. If i could code better and had the time I would make my own dammit.

:)

Mark - Macdisucssion

#41 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by MattyT <matty@box.net.au>

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 1:31 AM

Reply to this message

If people have specific complaints, they should state them specifically. Otherwise, they're just trying to get some attention, which is easier than trying to understand that which you don't.

#46 Mac Needs an Alternative to Mozilla?

by Waldo

Wednesday September 1st, 1999 9:28 AM

Reply to this message

I posted this once before, but it can't hurt to mention it again. About a week or so ago, Appleinsider.com reviewed an ie5 for mac beta. Here's the report:

<http://www.appleinsider.c…ernet-explorer-five.shtml>

W

#52 M9 on a PPC 603 120Mhz...

by Anon

Thursday September 2nd, 1999 9:11 AM

Reply to this message

Hi, it's true Mozilla IS slow, but it's got great features and a REALLY FAST html rendering engine. It's also true the look&feel isn't Mac-ish at all, but maybe some cute designer at Apple Computer would accept to make a QuickTimePlayer 4 - Skin? This would be really great.

#53 M9 on a PPC 603 120Mhz...

by Anon

Thursday September 2nd, 1999 9:12 AM

Reply to this message

Hi, it's true Mozilla IS slow, but it's got great features and a REALLY FAST html rendering engine. It's also true the look&feel isn't Mac-ish at all, but maybe some cute designer at Apple Computer would accept to make a QuickTimePlayer 4 - Skin? This would be really great.

#60 M9 on a PPC 603 120Mhz...

by Anon

Thursday September 16th, 1999 4:02 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla's rendering speed seems very slow under Windows. I am running M9 on a 266MHz Pentium II laptop with 64MB RAM (under Windows). It takes Mozilla 4.5 seconds to render a rather large table I have (not nested), while it takes Netscape 4.61 only 1.9 seconds and Internet Explorer 5.0 only 1.3 seconds to render the same table. The table is located on my local disk, and I am loading it as a file.

#61 M9 on a PPC 603 120Mhz...

by Anon

Thursday September 16th, 1999 4:02 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla's rendering speed seems very slow under Windows. I am running M9 on a 266MHz Pentium II laptop with 64MB RAM (under Windows). It takes Mozilla 4.5 seconds to render a rather large table I have (not nested), while it takes Netscape 4.61 only 1.9 seconds and Internet Explorer 5.0 only 1.3 seconds to render the same table. The table is located on my local disk, and I am loading it as a file.

#54 Mozilla is fast for me.

by Anon

Thursday September 2nd, 1999 12:31 PM

Reply to this message

I get startup speeds of seven seconds sometimes on my G3/350. True it varies wildly, but the longest I've had to wait is about 30.

M9 is my first experience with Mozilla, and I am impressed. Live window resizing, and realtime re-renderring of the tables as you resize. If ever something in a web browser made my jaw drop, it was this. It's good that Nav. Services are supported too. I'm sick of Netscape telling me that 700 files in a directory is too many.

What I do think needs fixed is the way the appearance is implemented. But since Moz is open source, I can always hope that some friendly group of Mac coders will replace it with an appearance manager UI. OS Themes are the key. IMO. Not a skin for each individual app.

#59 Skins a no no

by Anon

Tuesday September 14th, 1999 1:09 PM

Reply to this message

Skins seem like a cool idea on the face of it, but to be honest doesn't it make more sense to use the UI that Apple gave us - after all it looks the way it does for a reason. I want a browser that browses, not one that runs slower and looks weird because it's developers have decided to abandon the guidelines for UI style and functionality that are built into the OS from it's very roots. It's certainly nice to see new MacOS features like Navigation services but keep it consistent please. Skins maybe should be an option but shouldn't be the default choice.

#55 On KDE dropping KFM

by Anon

Thursday September 2nd, 1999 2:27 PM

Reply to this message

Beg (see above) was starting a rumor that KDE would be dropping its browser, Konqueror (aka KFM). I just wanted to point out that this is not so. The KDE devel team is working very hard on the next generation KFM, which will have enhanced HTML, CSS and DOM support, as well as javascript and maybe even java. They are throwing CORBA in there and all sorts of cool things that will make this a very sleek file manager, and a fun, fast browser. So the rumor is not true. (But I have heard that Gnome will use Mozilla.) I personnally use KFM every day for my browsing. I like it a lot because op its combination of features (obviously more than Lynx, even if Mozilla M9 gives the stable version a serious run for its money), speed (much better than Navigator or Mozilla M9) and reliability (better than most, though not as good as Lynx, of course). So I really like it. But I believe that from a Mozilla standpoint, KFM is definitely not the "enemy". KFM is a lightweight, feature-rich browser. Mozilla is the fuul shebang, with everything you will ever need on the Web (which entails some sluggishness). They appeal to different crowds, or different web browsing. I know I will still use KFM when Mozilla 5.0 comes out, but that does not mean I will not rush Moz to my hard drive to try out on the coolest pages. Having to start up Netscape when KFM gives me attitude just ruins my day... :-) Cheers, and thanks to all Mozilla contributors.

#56 Isn't really particularly

by ihxo

Thursday September 2nd, 1999 2:42 PM

Reply to this message

Mozila in windows looks a faster because it got a MS DOS shell running at the back while Mozilla loads, but in Mac you got nothing but waiting for nearly a minute for it to load (which I think it looks more like a crash). Maybe a splash screen will help.

#57 Not a 'walk in the park' in Wintel land, either

by Anon

Saturday September 4th, 1999 8:26 PM

Reply to this message

The slow loading and rendering times experienced by Mac users is definitely not unique to the Mac. I'm running a Windows machine at a horribly slow 100MHz, and I just downloaded and booted the M9 update of Mozilla. As with each previous build, it took a long time to load the first time (almost 5 minutes). While this can most definitely be linked to the CPU speed, I'm certain it isn't the sole problem. As mentioned in previous postings, the fact that the browser must talk back and forth with the Apprunner program and with various other components is a major contributor to the snail-pace loading. I must agree with those who have emphasized that this is ONLY a developer preview. To expect smooth sailing at this point in Mozilla's lifecycle would be ludicrous and just plain stupid (though we can always hope, right?). I mean, just look at Microsoft. They've been working on Windows 2000 (formerly NT 5.0) for what seems like ages. And it STILL isn't bugfree, nor will it ever be. Why? Because no programmer has perfect knowledge of any programming language (even if he or she authored or pioneered that language), and as such, no program can or will ever be perfect. Obviously, Mozilla will improve as the milestones progress, and performance will be much much better once a stable beta or even alpha version is completed. Right now, we're just nitpicking and looking for any possible error or downside that we can find, as though we were obsessed with perfection. In closing, I'd just like to remind everyone that this is a PREVIEW, and that it is barely a fraction of what the final release will be. So you can't exactly expect too much from it. It's like the auto industry. You wouldn't expect killer performance from a chassis and engine, with no instrument panel or steering wheel, and sitting on an assembly line with no axles or wheels...would you? Of course not...you gotta slap some sheetmetal and paint on that baby before it's even remotely comparable to the finished product. Keep up the good work folks. If I understood half the stuff that was going into developing this project, I'd be right there lending a hand. But all I know is some Visual Basic, COBOL, and HTML. I'm so far behind I'll NEVER catch up! But I can always wish...

#58 platform optomisation = speed

by Anon

Monday September 13th, 1999 9:18 AM

Reply to this message

How can you expect Mozilla to run at any decent speed if it is being written for x different platforms? MS only have to worry about optomising for win32 really, so IE will always be faster. I know this deviates from the point, but this must surely be a factor.

#62 I don't know what they are talking about

by Anon

Thursday September 30th, 1999 10:49 AM

Reply to this message

I read a few of the posts by people complaining about how slow Mozzila was. I wondered if it would be worth it to download it and try it out for my self. I downloaded and it sat there on my screen and did nothing. No self install, Nothing. So I had to try another site to download from. It turn out to be quicker than the first site and it self installed from the moment it was finished downloading and for those of you who so it is slow. It is "Jumping" fast on my Bondi Imac with 64 Meg rams upgrade and 8.6.