New Mozilla Browser, Will anybody have this new mozilla browser!

November 21, 2001 4:36 AM

New Mozilla Browser, Will anybody have this new mozilla browser! A new version of the open source mozilla browser (what Netscape 6 is based upon) is out. Preliminary impressions: faster, less buggy and with cool new toys. This is getting better and better, maybe we will get some competiton after all.
posted by nedrichards (26 comments total)

ouch. that should be 'which netscape', not 'what netscape'. Sorry. It's double fun, but I'd really like it if they spent some more time on supporting the DOM (so I could do cool things).

As for competiton, I think that will depend upon where technology goes. If it stays broadly the same, IE will win. It has to. If we all go open source then Netscape/Moz will probably win. If we all go smartphone then Opera will probably win, throughit's integration into the Symbian OS. The future will hopefully a big mess of all of that, with enough competition to keep innovation going (although we could all do without such innovations as <blink>.
posted by nedrichards at 4:41 AM on November 21, 2001

Bah, where's the build for OS X?
posted by sudama at 5:58 AM on November 21, 2001

This build is crap. . .. I'm not getting Kevin back to his ship any faster. . . .
posted by Danf at 7:43 AM on November 21, 2001

Dang, it still has my least favorite bug (right-click close tab command hides other tab than the one you're on, though it's still there if you then open a new tab). The same action has also been associated with most of my recent browser crashes; but then this is a very new feature, and they're looking closely at it. My second-least favorite is the tendency to fail to parse HTML amid complex table structure commonly found in UBB indexes, dumping pure HTML into the display; but I'll have to use it a while to see if that crops up. Dang. It just did.

Otherwise I'm very happy. "Crap"? That's ... vague.
posted by dhartung at 8:01 AM on November 21, 2001

I was just trying to funny, dhartung. . .I don't know enough about all this to provide any intelligent comments. . .
posted by Danf at 8:14 AM on November 21, 2001

Are we going to get a front-page post every time Mozilla advances an inch on its asymptotic crawl to 1.0? It's almost as bad as Slashdot: if Mozilla were really "less buggy, faster" with every new version, it should have reached the stage where it renders pages in a picosecond. Instead, I'm left thinking: "No, I'm not going to upgrade my PC in order to run a fucking web browser."
posted by holgate at 8:28 AM on November 21, 2001

1.0 should be a front-page post. I'm not sure every release until then has to be.
posted by mrbula at 8:38 AM on November 21, 2001

i wonder how many people who complain "this is still broken" or "it's slow" every time a new build comes out actually report the problem and contribute to the very thing they wish was "less buggy, less bloated, and faster."

everything appears to have to be spoon fed these days...
posted by afx114 at 8:38 AM on November 21, 2001

asymptotic crawl to 1.0

ouch...
posted by mattpfeff at 8:44 AM on November 21, 2001

*yawn*
posted by dogmatic at 8:45 AM on November 21, 2001

sudama - They seem to be working on it.

holgate - I've been using Mozilla exclusively at home (Linux--no IE) for months now, and with every release I see a few more bugs fixed. With most releases, I see a bit of a speed gain, too, though admittedly none as dramatic as the jump between the earlier milestones and the 0.8 series (which finally got me using Mozilla). So yes, it is less buggy and faster with every new version.

on the other hand,

afx114 - The people complaining about Mozilla aren't saying they wish it were better; they're saying they see no reason to switch to a broken browser when they have a quite good one available already. Still less do they have any reason to waste their own time working on improving the broken browser.

and finally,

everyone who mentioned 1.0 - I'm a bit worried about how legendary the 1.0 release is getting. Is there good reason to believe that it'll be different from any other release? I've been assuming that it's going to be just like the others - an incremental improvement, some bug fixes and optimizations. Is there some magic to the name 1.0 that'll make that version a real program if the current one isn't?
posted by moss at 9:33 AM on November 21, 2001

So yes, it is less buggy and faster with every new version.

And still runs like a sprinter with leaden shoes on my 1997-vintage Linux box. I've been using Galeon and other "Mozilla-lite" browsers instead.
posted by holgate at 9:37 AM on November 21, 2001

asymptotic crawl to 1.0

0.9.6... yeah! Only 12 more years until 1.0!
posted by tomorama at 12:40 PM on November 21, 2001

I've been using Mozilla almost exclusively (actually mostly Galeon, which uses Mozilla's Gecko renderer component) for well over a year. It just keeps getting better. Mozilla is actually fast enough on my wimpy 700MHz Celeron that I really ought to stop using Galeon, as I occasionally fire up Mozilla to use Mail/News anyway.

Regarding competition, Mozilla probably won't significantly eat into IE's share until many more people access the web via non-Windows systems. However, the existence of an excellent browser like Mozilla is a prerequisite for such a shift.

Unfortunately, Mozilla still has a long way to go before it surpasses even Netscape 4.x in usage. According to web logs for a site I'm involved with, Netscape 4.x users still outnumber Mozilla-based browser users three to one. (BTW, how come nobody publishes access log statistics anymore? In the early days of the web, it was de rigueur to have a page generated by wwwstat available.)
posted by mlinksva at 2:01 PM on November 21, 2001

Holgate: The asymptotic crawl comment was just mean. And yes, I laughed. A lot.

As for the rendering time, does anybody remember Craftmatic adjustable beds, and how they would say each new model cost 50% of the previous one, while never actually mentioning a number? I always wondered just how hideously priced the first must have been to allow them to do that.
posted by Su at 2:35 PM on November 21, 2001

Bah, where's the build for OS X?

It's on ftp.mozilla.org, they just haven't linked it on the web page yet. Is it my imagination or is the page loading supa-speedy now?

Now when they make the OS X build use an installer so I can run only Navigator and Venkman, then I'll be happy. All I want is the browser dammit—I already have Mail, Newsflash, Fire & JediKnight for all those other apps.

I'm still praying that the OmniGroup (or anyone really) is building a shell for Gecko (like Kmeleon) in Cocoa...
posted by teradome at 3:16 PM on November 21, 2001

Now when they make the OS X build use an installer so I can run only Navigator and Venkman, then I'll be happy. All I want is the browser dammit—I already have Mail, Newsflash, Fire & JediKnight for all those other apps.

Oh, man, that would be great--back to the days of plain'n'simple Navigator. I haven't used Venkman (that's the JS debugger, right?)--is it any good?

I'm still praying that the OmniGroup (or anyone really) is building a shell for Gecko (like Kmeleon) in Cocoa...

Is that the plan? OmniWeb is in some ways a hell of a browser--great interface, and Cocoa makes it *look* wonderful--but the standards support is the pits. If they're doing what you describe, and they don't load it up with unnecessary crap, Netscape-style, it could be the best ever. OmniGroups seems to be playing their cards very close to their chest though. I have no idea what their plans are.

Not to get any further off topic, but is there a site where they track release specifrically of Cocoa apps?
posted by rodii at 5:16 PM on November 21, 2001

The OS X build.
posted by darukaru at 5:33 PM on November 21, 2001

asymptotic crawl to 1.0

Thanks holgate - one of those rare, stylish singularities which justify MeFi malingering.

As for Mozilla, there is little less interesting than parce-and-display software. And with .Net coming, along with CforkinSharp, seems like re-embalming a rotting corpse. With apologies to enthusiasts, I find the whole phenomenon boring - a nascent, forgotten footnote.
posted by Opus Dark at 7:02 PM on November 21, 2001

Actually, "parce-and-display" software might be really interesting, as opposed to "parse-and-display" software.
posted by Opus Dark at 7:06 PM on November 21, 2001

I would prefer 'prance-and-display' software, myself.
posted by darukaru at 7:16 PM on November 21, 2001

Well, so would I, but it's so expensive. I'm waiting for the Danish shareware version - I hear the freeware stuff has a virus...and let's hope the firmware is suitably de-bugged and task-oriented.
posted by Opus Dark at 7:53 PM on November 21, 2001

this is way cool. thanks for the FRONT PAGE POST nedrichards.
posted by greyscale at 9:23 PM on November 21, 2001

As for Mozilla, there is little less interesting than parce-and-display software. And with .Net coming, along with CforkinSharp, seems like re-embalming a rotting corpse.

And yet no parsing-and-displaying of XML ever happens... What about .NET is so spectacular that it removes the need for a standards-compliant browser? Don't get me wrong, SOAP/XML-RPC services are great, but you still have to get that server response to the user. And browser standards are the best way to get that to users cross-platform.
And just parse-and-display? Have you tried the built-in IRC client (written only with XUL and Javascript)? Mozilla itself is a platform now—tho' it did add a year or two to the development time making it one—but it allows for some very nice cross-platform applications now...
posted by teradome at 10:39 PM on November 21, 2001

OK. I get the point everybody. Sorry. Worst. Browser. Related. Post. Ever. etc.
posted by nedrichards at 6:49 AM on November 22, 2001

aw, c'mon, this is a great thread. We owe ned for holgate's asymptotic crawl crack, too.
posted by mattpfeff at 8:41 AM on November 22, 2001