Mozilla 1.5 versus Safari
I am trying Mozilla and I think Mozilla feels faster than Safari. Safari will do this weird thing where it will load everything and than re-align the page afterwards. Mozilla will display it instantly.
I also installed Broadband Optomizer and my connection went up from a 1.1 megabit to a 1.2 megabit. Feels snappier overall.
What do you guys feel about Mozilla 1.5?
I also installed Broadband Optomizer and my connection went up from a 1.1 megabit to a 1.2 megabit. Feels snappier overall.
What do you guys feel about Mozilla 1.5?
Comments
Sure it's fast, but it's no Mac OS X app by any definition. Yes, it runs on Mac OS X, but the whole thing still looks, feels, and acts like a kludgy Linux/Windows port to me. Oh, wait, that's what it is.
And what's with Mozilla STILL creating some bizarre small window titled "hidden" upon startup? Sure, since version 1.0 (i think) it was placed off-screen, but with Exposé it's rearing its ugly head again. Dare I say, "WTF"?
Maybe someone should tell Apple this about their port of iTunes.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Their whole thing with trying to subvert the native OS GUI is a dumb idea.
They're not trying to subvert it, they're just failing to emulate it very well, basically because Mac OS X's interface is far more advanced than others out there.
One of the main goals of Mozilla Firebird was to make it more native on XP. I think it uses some kind of built-in (to windows that is) themeing and has finally got around to implementing lots of really obscure windows shortcuts.
You can tell that Mozilla is trying given the drop down sheets, preferences, menu bar at the top etc. It's just a pretty damn hard task given their desire to use the same codebase on multiple platforms.
One of the main Firebird developers just got a dual G5, and intends to sort out some issues on the Mac, unfortunately (well, it depends how you look at it) I think he means basic underlying technology rather than the GUI
Finally, I note that Camino doesn't even seem to rate a mention anymore. Why's that? It's got the gui and the rendering.
Firebird is improving on OS X by leaps and bounds. Latest version (again, with Pinstripe) is quite fast and practically looking like a real, bona fide OS X app.
As such, Mozilla was never polished from a UI standpoint. The user experience counts for a lot, I might add. But where the Mozilla project really shines is in the browsers like Camino. These are browsers that are derived from Mozilla, and are no longer proof of concepts, rather they are actual functioning, polished chunks of code.
I find it amusing that anyone could stomach using Mozilla; the user experience is just plain awful. I can see why the linux geeks like it though...
Originally posted by Aquatic
When are the developers going to get it? Their whole thing with trying to subvert the native OS GUI is a dumb idea.
As a developer it makes a whole lot of sense to develop something that can be used by everybody, today and tomorrow, rather than focusing on a subset and developing for a platform that may or may not be here tomorrow. Before I get all flamed, remember that Apple is on (at least) its fourth API since inception of the company (II, mac, mac PPC, OSX). Windows is just as bad. Developers are sick of it.
I would not use it without Pinstripe Theme.
(That's actually why I haven't upgraded past 1.4, yet) \
Originally posted by Kirkland
Where can one find this pinstripe theme for Mozilla Firebird for OS X?
Just google "pinstripe".
Originally posted by Aquatic
Jukebox if you use the native GUI it doesn't matter. The OS handles the GUI. Or if the app needs control then it should look like the OS, like in Office with all the toolbar icons. It's just common sense. iTunes is different, it is trying to SELL MacOS X and iApp ease of use by showcasing a better GUI. Mozilla isn't trying to sell anything, they just want a good end user experience; but they're not going to get a good end user experience with this fugly Netscape 6/7 crap look going on.
How do you use the native GUI in Java? JNI? That would defeat the purpose of Java. Java developers have three mainstream choices (and probably lots of smaller ones); AWT, Swing, and SWT. AWT will look native, but has traditionally been buggy and lacking in features. Swing is slightly less buggy, has more features, but does not look like the native OS (this is what your complaining about). SWT is newer, but is supposed to be a hybrid of AWT and Swing.. Supposedly it uses native components where it can, and augments them with lightweight components where it has to. I'm going to try this soon.
I wish they would update it more, or has development stopped?