Mozilla 0.9.6 out.

[groverat]

<a href="http://www.mozilla.org" target="_blank">http://www.mozilla.org</a>

Shaping up nicely, in my opinion, runs much better on OSX than 0.9.5 did.

Anyone one else used it yet?

[Roger Hsu]

I've used it, but I still prefer Explorer. Explorer just *feels* faster than any other OS X browser I've tried. Omniweb is by far the slowest. Opera was my OS X browser of choice for a while, but I'd always revert back to Explorer since it was more stable and had better Java support (especially for online banking). I think Opera's addressed most of those issues, but unfortunately, I can't even get it to run anymore. It just "Unexpectedly Quits" every time I launch it.

I do admit that Mozilla 0.9.6 is pretty good and the best Mozilla so far. I just hope that by 1.0 it'll be faster than Explorer.

[francisG3]

Explorer feels fast on your machine? Wow. On mine, it runs like an overweight, underexercised, flea-bitten dog that's just eaten a 98 oz. porkchop.

Downloaded the Mozilla .96, and I just LOVE it. It loads EVERYTHING faster than Explorer ever did. Although Explorer kicks butt in OS9, it's a dog in OS X (see above).

[Nebagakid]

is it true you can do all those mouse move-ments to controll it? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[groverat]

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about Negabakid.

For anyone using Windows at any time, Mozilla .9.6 runs quite nice.

[Nebagakid]

it is over at <a href="http://www.macosxhints.com" target="_blank">macosxhints.com</a> ;)

[NoahJ]

[quote]Originally posted by Nebagakid:
<strong>is it true you can do all those mouse move-ments to controll it? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you speaking of Opera? I have used the mouse movements to control Opera. However it takes a while to learn what all the mouse moves do. If you learn it you can browse faster because you can control the brwoser form any part of the window and do not have ot stop and look for the back button anymore.

[foamy]

for the really adventurous there is an experimental Mozilla build compiled as Mach-O instead of CFM. I'm assuming the codebase used is Unix. There is a thread on it in the macosx newsgroup at news.mozilla.org.

Find the build here
<a href="http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/experimental/macho/" target="_blank">http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/experimental/macho/</a>

Note that this is in the Experimental directory and thus has TONS of bugs so don't complain, but it is significantly faster than the Carbon version.

[francisG3]

[read in voice of "Beavis"]:

Faster? Did you say faster? I'll deal with the bugs. Heeh heeeh. Heeeh. Heeeeh heeeehh..

Just downloaded the "Macho" browser. Very curious. Will post an update.

[francisG3]

It wasn't faster.

As a matter of fact, it stunk.

But thanks - maybe I'll check it in a month.

[foamy]

Francis,

You on a modem or a fast connection?

I'm on at 45Mb T3 and it was definately faster, but like I said, it has TONS of bugs and is *experimental*.

The newsgroup discussions show that it is significantly faster on the benchmarks like iBench and other ones I can't remember, but that the effect is most pronounced on fast connections.

Probably due to better networking when compiled as macho.

YMMV

[groverat]

Macho was faster but more unstable.

[Cosmo]

"Macho" seems faster to me, quite a bit faster actually. I haven't run into any bugs, but i've only been using it for 10 minutes of so