mozzila 1.7.2

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nick, Aug 16, 2004.

  1. Nick

    Nick Guest

    Now I have just installed mozilla. some of you may recall I have used
    firebox having downloaded that recently. First of all I gather mozilloa
    used to be Netscape.

    Seems to me theyve improved it from the Netscape of old as I recall
    having lock up problems of one sort and another with Netscape. Anyway I
    just wondered, since I'm i a kind of in exploratory mode, my thoughts on
    mozilla as per subject heading are that over firefox, mozilla seems less
    heavy, for want of a better term, than firefox. Is that just my
    imagination ? or is 1.7.2 less shall we say, labour intensive than
    firefox. Or thunder bird.
     
    Nick, Aug 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nick wrote:
    > Now I have just installed mozilla. some of you may recall I have used
    > firebox having downloaded that recently. First of all I gather mozilloa
    > used to be Netscape.


    errr, kinda.

    > Seems to me theyve improved it from the Netscape of old as I recall
    > having lock up problems of one sort and another with Netscape. Anyway I
    > just wondered, since I'm i a kind of in exploratory mode, my thoughts on
    > mozilla as per subject heading are that over firefox, mozilla seems less
    > heavy, for want of a better term, than firefox. Is that just my
    > imagination ? or is 1.7.2 less shall we say, labour intensive than
    > firefox. Or thunder bird.


    errr, well, the mozilla suite is meant to be packing up and going home,
    in favour of firefox and thunderbird, although quite how it can(as an
    open source project), Im not entirely sure.

    from what I have read on it, mozilla suite is more "standards
    complient"/Nazi like, where-as firefox/thunderbird is more "real-world
    complient".

    As for being less heavy? I'd have thought it was at least meant to be
    the otherway around.

    Personally, I prefer the suite, I like intergration.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nick

    Adam Warner Guest

    Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    Hi Nick,

    > Now I have just installed mozilla. some of you may recall I have used
    > firebox having downloaded that recently. First of all I gather mozilla
    > used to be Netscape.
    >
    > Seems to me they've improved it from the Netscape of old as I recall
    > having lock up problems of one sort and another with Netscape.


    It's a complete rewrite with a superb rendering engine (Gecko). The Gecko
    rendering engine is shared by the Mozilla family of browsers.

    Mozilla was the poster child for "what not to do" in software development;
    but now that it's a highly successful robust product that's behind us:
    <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>

    > Anyway I just wondered, since I'm i a kind of in exploratory mode, my
    > thoughts on mozilla as per subject heading are that over firefox,
    > mozilla seems less heavy, for want of a better term, than firefox. Is
    > that just my imagination ? or is 1.7.2 less shall we say, labour
    > intensive than firefox.


    If it's light on resources on your system that's really all that matters.
    It's not important which of the two you choose to use.

    Regards,
    Adam
     
    Adam Warner, Aug 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Nick

    Nick Guest

    Re: mozilla 1.7.2


    >
    > If it's light on resources on your system that's really all that matters.
    > It's not important which of the two you choose to use.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Adam


    Fair enough too. Was just an observation that mozilla seems, to my
    machine at least, less ahrd going. More kind of, onto it than firefox
    and thunderbird.
     
    Nick, Aug 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Nick

    Adam Warner Guest

    Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    Hi Nick,

    >> If it's light on resources on your system that's really all that matters.
    >> It's not important which of the two you choose to use.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> Adam

    >
    > Fair enough too. Was just an observation that mozilla seems, to my
    > machine at least, less ahrd going. More kind of, onto it than firefox
    > and thunderbird.


    Fair enough too. As I'm a non-Windows Mozilla user I can't verify your
    experience. What's important is that you are using a decent browser.

    If you haven't seen the Zen Garden yet you're in for a treat:
    <http://www.csszengarden.com/>

    Here's the same page without a Cascading Style Sheet:
    <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=none>

    Here are all the official designs:
    <http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/alldesigns/official/>

    Regards,
    Adam
     
    Adam Warner, Aug 16, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <> in nz.comp on Mon, 16 Aug 2004
    16:28:21 +1200, Nick <> says...
    > Now I have just installed mozilla. some of you may recall I have used
    > firebox having downloaded that recently. First of all I gather mozilloa
    > used to be Netscape.
    >
    > Seems to me theyve improved it from the Netscape of old as I recall
    > having lock up problems of one sort and another with Netscape. Anyway I
    > just wondered, since I'm i a kind of in exploratory mode, my thoughts on
    > mozilla as per subject heading are that over firefox, mozilla seems less
    > heavy, for want of a better term, than firefox. Is that just my
    > imagination ? or is 1.7.2 less shall we say, labour intensive than
    > firefox. Or thunder bird.


    No Firefox / TB are lite versions of Moz
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 16, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <> in nz.comp on Mon, 16 Aug 2004
    16:51:25 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz
    <Dave@_no_spam_here_please_dave.net.nz> says...
    > Nick wrote:
    > > Now I have just installed mozilla. some of you may recall I have used
    > > firebox having downloaded that recently. First of all I gather mozilloa
    > > used to be Netscape.

    >
    > errr, kinda.
    >
    > > Seems to me theyve improved it from the Netscape of old as I recall
    > > having lock up problems of one sort and another with Netscape. Anyway I
    > > just wondered, since I'm i a kind of in exploratory mode, my thoughts on
    > > mozilla as per subject heading are that over firefox, mozilla seems less
    > > heavy, for want of a better term, than firefox. Is that just my
    > > imagination ? or is 1.7.2 less shall we say, labour intensive than
    > > firefox. Or thunder bird.

    >
    > errr, well, the mozilla suite is meant to be packing up and going home,
    > in favour of firefox and thunderbird, although quite how it can(as an
    > open source project), Im not entirely sure.


    Don't think it will happen now.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    In article <> in nz.comp
    on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:56:48 +1200, Adam Warner
    <> says...
    > Hi Nick,
    >
    > > Now I have just installed mozilla. some of you may recall I have used
    > > firebox having downloaded that recently. First of all I gather mozilla
    > > used to be Netscape.
    > >
    > > Seems to me they've improved it from the Netscape of old as I recall
    > > having lock up problems of one sort and another with Netscape.

    >
    > It's a complete rewrite with a superb rendering engine (Gecko). The Gecko
    > rendering engine is shared by the Mozilla family of browsers.
    >
    > Mozilla was the poster child for "what not to do" in software development;
    > but now that it's a highly successful robust product that's behind us:
    > <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>


    Basically Netscape was crap, they started Mozilla again from scratch, and
    it took them four years, they've done a great job though.

    > > Anyway I just wondered, since I'm i a kind of in exploratory mode, my
    > > thoughts on mozilla as per subject heading are that over firefox,
    > > mozilla seems less heavy, for want of a better term, than firefox. Is
    > > that just my imagination ? or is 1.7.2 less shall we say, labour
    > > intensive than firefox.

    >
    > If it's light on resources on your system that's really all that matters.
    > It's not important which of the two you choose to use.


    FF is supposed to be lite, I've used both and can't really tell the
    difference...on a Pentium 100, Win95.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Nick

    theseus Guest

    "Nick" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Now I have just installed mozilla. some of you may recall I have used
    > firebox having downloaded that recently. First of all I gather mozilloa
    > used to be Netscape.
    >
    > Seems to me theyve improved it from the Netscape of old as I recall having
    > lock up problems of one sort and another with Netscape. Anyway I just
    > wondered, since I'm i a kind of in exploratory mode, my thoughts on
    > mozilla as per subject heading are that over firefox, mozilla seems less
    > heavy, for want of a better term, than firefox. Is that just my
    > imagination ? or is 1.7.2 less shall we say, labour intensive than
    > firefox. Or thunder bird.


    same engine, different skin, no difference in computation.
    Some people like an all in one, some people like discrete applications.
    Its got nothing in common with Netscape 4.xx
     
    theseus, Aug 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Nick

    Craig Shore Guest

    Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:04:46 +1200, Nick <> wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> If it's light on resources on your system that's really all that matters.
    >> It's not important which of the two you choose to use.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> Adam

    >
    >Fair enough too. Was just an observation that mozilla seems, to my
    >machine at least, less ahrd going. More kind of, onto it than firefox
    >and thunderbird.


    This is just a feeling with no real proof, but I think the latest version of
    Firefox feels more heavy than the one before it, and less stable.
     
    Craig Shore, Aug 16, 2004
    #10
  11. Nick

    steve Guest

    Nick wrote:

    > Now I have just installed mozilla. some of you may recall I have used
    > firebox having downloaded that recently. First of all I gather mozilloa
    > used to be Netscape.
    >
    > Seems to me theyve improved it from the Netscape of old as I recall
    > having lock up problems of one sort and another with Netscape. Anyway I
    > just wondered, since I'm i a kind of in exploratory mode, my thoughts on
    > mozilla as per subject heading are that over firefox, mozilla seems less
    > heavy, for want of a better term, than firefox. Is that just my
    > imagination ? or is 1.7.2 less shall we say, labour intensive than
    > firefox. Or thunder bird.


    Mozilla used to be Netscape (which used to be Mozilla).

    It's gone full circle...and come back.

    'Firefox' is a technology demo for the next *major* revision of Mozilla.

    They say: "This technology preview of our award winning next generation
    browser is a sign of things to come from Mozilla."

    'Mozilla' is the current, fully-functional, supported production version of
    the mainstream browser.
     
    steve, Aug 16, 2004
    #11
  12. Nick

    Nigel Guest

    Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:08:06 +1200, Craig Shore wrote:

    > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:04:46 +1200, Nick <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>> If it's light on resources on your system that's really all that
    >>> matters. It's not important which of the two you choose to use.
    >>>
    >>> Regards,
    >>> Adam

    >>
    >>Fair enough too. Was just an observation that mozilla seems, to my
    >>machine at least, less ahrd going. More kind of, onto it than firefox
    >>and thunderbird.

    >
    > This is just a feeling with no real proof, but I think the latest version
    > of Firefox feels more heavy than the one before it, and less stable.

    I agree with you about 0.9, it was heavier & less stable IMHO. Have you
    tried 0.93, it's going nicely for me under linux ( am not using my windows
    box enough to make a call at the moment ).

    Nigel
     
    Nigel, Aug 16, 2004
    #12
  13. Nick

    Gordon Guest

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:15:57 +1200, theseus wrote:

    > same engine, different skin, no difference in computation.
    > Some people like an all in one, some people like discrete applications.


    Indeed. The *inx idea is to have a programme which does one thing, but it
    does it very, very, well.


    > Its got nothing in common with Netscape 4.xx


    History?
     
    Gordon, Aug 19, 2004
    #13
  14. Nick

    Gordon Guest

    Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:02:49 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > Basically Netscape was crap,


    FFS, study some recent history.
     
    Gordon, Aug 19, 2004
    #14
  15. Nick

    Gordon Guest

    Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:08:06 +1200, Craig Shore wrote:

    > This is just a feeling with no real proof, but I think the latest version of
    > Firefox feels more heavy than the one before it, and less stable.


    Okay, platform you are running it on *is* requried to give a consided
    response.

    On Linux, Firefox 0.6 to 0.9 has been very stable for me.
     
    Gordon, Aug 19, 2004
    #15
  16. Nick

    Gordon Guest

    Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:51:29 +1200, Nigel wrote:

    > I agree with you about 0.9, it was heavier & less stable IMHO. Have you
    > tried 0.93, it's going nicely for me under linux ( am not using my windows
    > box enough to make a call at the moment ).


    Ah ha! We have evidence that the platform is wobbling. Not the book you
    are reading.
     
    Gordon, Aug 19, 2004
    #16
  17. Nick

    Enkidu Guest

    Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:55:17 +1200, Gordon <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:02:49 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    >> Basically Netscape was crap,

    >
    >FFS, study some recent history.
    >

    That is recent history. Netscape has always been prone to crashing,
    and this legacy was passed on to Mozilla. Firefox has been the best
    for me so far, only crashing twice since I installed it a couple of
    months ago. (Once in 0.8 and once in 0.9 from memory).

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Aug 19, 2004
    #17
  18. Nick

    theseus Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:15:57 +1200, theseus wrote:
    >
    >> same engine, different skin, no difference in computation.
    >> Some people like an all in one, some people like discrete
    >> applications.

    >
    > Indeed. The *inx idea is to have a programme which does one thing,
    > but it does it very, very, well.
    >
    >
    >> Its got nothing in common with Netscape 4.xx

    >
    > History?


    Netscape 6 known as the mozilla project was written from scratch with the
    Gecko engine and Netscape 4 EOL'd
     
    theseus, Aug 19, 2004
    #18
  19. Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    In article <> in nz.comp on
    Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:25:45 +1200, Enkidu <> says...
    > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:55:17 +1200, Gordon <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:02:49 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > >
    > >> Basically Netscape was crap,

    > >
    > >FFS, study some recent history.
    > >

    > That is recent history. Netscape has always been prone to crashing,
    > and this legacy was passed on to Mozilla. Firefox has been the best
    > for me so far, only crashing twice since I installed it a couple of
    > months ago. (Once in 0.8 and once in 0.9 from memory).


    Netscape was such crap that the Mozilla team opted to start from scratch
    rather than using the existing Netscape code. Later versions of Netscape
    were based on Mozilla rather than the previous Netscape code base. Read
    the history of Mozilla on Wikipedia.

    Gordon is in my killfile because all he ever does is post these inane
    messages all day long.

    The main problems I have had with Mozilla / Firefox was to do with my
    video card. Changing the card has fixed that and I continue to see a very
    good level of performance from these browsers.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 19, 2004
    #19
  20. Re: mozilla 1.7.2

    Gordon wrote:
    >>Basically Netscape was crap,


    > FFS, study some recent history.


    I dont know what version Pat wasreferring to, but if it was ver 6, then
    I happen to agree whole heartedly.

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 19, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Arnold

    Mozzila Vrs Firefox

    Peter Arnold, Aug 5, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,224
    Leonidas Jones
    Aug 5, 2004
  2. hiren

    I Problem with mozzila

    hiren, Aug 8, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    386
    Plato
    Aug 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page