Ars Technica Reviews Mozilla 837
Aglassis writes "This Ars Technica review gives mozilla 1.0 an overall score of 7/10 (9 for Gecko and 6 for the browser). The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL. Overall they say that mozilla would make a good substitute for IE 6 but there is no major reason to switch over."
its not a xul issue (Score:5, Insightful)
siri
Security? (Score:4, Insightful)
Secirity Problems perhaps? Given the number os severe security issues that have been found in IE over the years, I would have thought this would have been a pretty major reason to switch!
Re:tabs (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd actually use it over IE if it was more stable. Yeah, you heard right. IE is actually more stable for me for some reason.
Misunderstanding? (Score:2, Insightful)
Computing is confusing enough without your UI looking like it's been designed by a herd of badgers on acid.
There is no major reason to switch... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Interface issues / XUL (Score:5, Insightful)
You're joking, right? XUL is an interface/component application based on XML allright. But that has nothing to with the cited usability problems. The Open Source community simply has to stop saying things like 'yeah the user interface is bad, but if you complain about it openly it shows that you don't really understand the XYZWhatever+ architecture!' Stop accepting things like they are, change the world (of software) now!
7 is about right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Support for flash / shockwave is decent.
Frontpage-generated pages still distort often.
Java works great (better than IE).
At leasts it beats opera on stability and functionality, plus it's (banner)free.
With Linux, I guess it's your best choice, with Windows, frontpage makes the difference, not IE.
mozilla (Score:2, Insightful)
We should support non-Microsoft applications (provided they are good) to help free software (not as in beer)
Not a poor understanding of XUL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is no major reason to switch... (Score:3, Insightful)
XUL has nothing to do with it. (Score:4, Insightful)
They like the engine. It's the default interface that 99% of users will be using that they have problems with, and I think that's a valid point.
XUL makes it possible to do a lot of cool interface things, and it is definitely a Good Thing For Mozilla, but it doesn't really matter when the default interface is slow and sucks.
Heck, most people never even change their startup page, much less program a new *interface*
I don't think the author got the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that Mozilla's fault? Moz works better and behaves more reliably than any cross-platform GUI program I can think of.
More than that, its unique features (image permissions, javascript controls) barely rate a passing mention by the author. Those are killer features. I'd hate to use a browser that didn't have them.
I felt that the author - and most people writing browser comparisons right now - was too heavily biased by IE-related experiences; I thought he was writing more toward "This is what IE does and this is how Moz is different" rather than an actual browser review.
Try using IE and Moz over a 28.8kpbs internet connection and THEN tell me which you like better.
The interface *is* a problem (Score:2, Insightful)
The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL.
Uh, why can't the problem just be that Mozilla's user interface is not very good? I'm sorry, but there's a reason why there are multiple Mozdev projects to build browsers without Mozilla's cumbersome interface, why Dave Hyatt [mozillazine.org] and mpt [phrasewise.com] have savaged the current interface.
Why can't some people accept the fact that Mozilla's UI needs a lot of work?
Non-standard interface (Score:5, Insightful)
At the very least you must concede that the interface IS non-standard and does NOT look like the native interface.
So, we conclude that:
> This was probably due to a poor understanding
> by the authors of XUL.
Explain?!?
They make a valid point. It's true regardless of the technologies involved. So you claim that they are wrong due to ignorance of XUL? I would claim that you were wrong due to ignorance of logic.
Justin Dubs
Major Reasons to swtich: (Score:4, Insightful)
2.) No more popups
3.) Better Security
Reasons to still use IE on occasion:
1.) Poor support for common technologies (like the JRE: it runs but it don't run for long (2-3 hours and it goes down hard)).
2.) Poor support for common but non-standard features (Like layers). Even Qmailadmin doesn't work well with Mozilla.
3.) Idiot web designers that refuse to let you view their page/application unless you have one of their approved browsers (Like Webtrends).
Re:Not a poor understanding of XUL (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably one of the biggest obstacles to the holy grail of a popular linux desktop that no two applications work the same way. Right-clicking in one does something completely different than right-clicking in the other. Hell, there are major applications that have completely different keyboard shortcuts for basic actions like save, copy and paste.
Perhaps one of the greatest reasons for Windows' (and Mac's especially) success is that learning one application makes learning other applications much much easier.
Last summer I taught my mom how to use MS Word. After that she picked up Internet Explorer with no problem whatsoever. When Moz 1.0 came out, I tried to get the family to switch over, but it was an effort in futility. Internet Explorer on Windows, for all its many many flaws, works the way a Windows application is supposed to work. Mozilla on Windows (kind of) works the way an X-Win application is supposed to work, which is absolutely no good. The Windows theme should be the default on the Win32 binary package, and the only reason it isn't is the stupid pride of the OS community.
Here's a good reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There is no major reason to switch... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There may be a reason... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:its not a xul issue (Score:1, Insightful)
XUL is lovely but the vast majority of user, or even seasoned web developers are just not going to go anywhere near it.
practicing what they preach? (Score:4, Insightful)
The worst problem with the current internet landscape is the proliferation of "table-based" layouts.
But what does view source reveal?
<!-- CONTENT TABLE --><TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0">
<TR>
Look no further than the HTML header for the culprit:
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"><meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
Now that they have recognized the problem, are they or their resident Microsoft weenie going to fix it? Probably not.
Why would Mozilla be more secure? (Score:1, Insightful)
IE has had more than it's share of security problems, but who says Mozilla won't? Despite being closed source, IE's had a lot more eyes on it, for a lot longer. This may change over time, but Mozilla is a "1.0" release, and from a security perspective, it's usually better to go with a more mature application. As the continual release of vulnerabilities against both open source and closed source software demonstrates, being O.S. is no security panacea.
Plus, has it occured to anyone that the rash of security "problems" from MS might be due to the fact that they really are getting serious about security over there.? Seems like a catch-22 to me... if they are doing the "right thing" as is defined by the
Re:Not a poor understanding of XUL (Score:0, Insightful)
Doesn't look like a windows app (Score:4, Insightful)
However, what I will mention is software such as QuickTime player, RealOne, MusicMatch Jukebox, and literally anything written in Java. None of these use the MFC toolkit (not the widgets, anyway) nor do they follow the theme of the widgets in WinXP.
Many people complain that Linux apps don't fit together because QT != GTK != Motif etc. However, it is commonplace in Windows apps for larger development outfits to use their own widget sets, and nobody bats an eyelid.
As a simple example, I use Mozilla with the excellent Orbit-Retro theme. My dad can't figure it out. So, I switch to the IE theme. The layout is identical, but the look/feel of the widgets is more 'windows like'. Suddenly he's right at home.
Perhaps the comment should have read 'doesn't look like any of the windows apps we're used to'
Re:its not a xul issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla Mail is better? lol (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be joking. I'm a Mozilla advocate, but even I admit the mail client is a piece of trash.
The interface is inconsistent, and it doesn't make it obvious what is going on at any one time. There's nothing like the big 'Send/Recv' button in OE, and when you collect mail, you have no idea what's going on.
The folders are sloppily managed, and the news reader is certainly worse.
Sure, it doesn't automatically open attachments or spread viruses around.. but the user experience is more important than security to me! It's a program I have to use for hours every day!
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a major detractor to most cross-platform toolkits. Apps in Windows should look like Windows apps, Apps in MacOS should look like MacOS apps, Apps in KDE should look like KDE apps, etc. It helps the user immesurably, and makes learning applications more follow the power law of practice.
Re:its not a xul issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:7 is about right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Plug-in support / compatibility (Score:2, Insightful)
My one complaint about Mozilla, and Netscape 6, the absolute dirth of useable plugins for popular things like Shockwave, Flash, and Quicktime. Additionally, there does not appear to be any effort being put forth to rectify this situation. This gives me little hope of ever seeing extensions for things like DjVu [djvu.com], a supremely excellent format for distributing scanned documents across the web. (Ya gotta appreciate a format that gives better reproduction than PDF at 20% to 30% of the file size.)
Personally, I think that the broad use of Shockwave, Flash, and Quicktime warrant the ability of the browser to handle those formats natively. Don't write them into the browser kernel but, DO provide separate, replaceable, upgradeable extensions that ship with the browser distribution.
Give Mozilla the ability to handle the most commonly used file formats and I'll be able to convert everybody I know over to it.
Re:7 is about right... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a really poor excuse for not supporting existing standards. W3C is an 'industry standard' standards body, and as such moves faster than recognised standards organisations.
CSS2 is 4 years old, and still IE has by far the worst support for it of any major browser.
I don't really object to vendors producing eye candy stuff like coloured scrollbars; when they do it and can't get the basics right (like taking until version 6 to understand difficult concepts like 'width') you have to question their motives.
Re:The interface *is* a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
It can be measured scientifically.
It's not supposed to feel like a Windows app (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mozilla Mail is better? lol (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah? Then what does this mean: Contacting host... sending login information... no new messages on server... downloading message 1 of 10?
I've been using Mozilla Mail for 3 years now and I am quite happy with it. Before I was using Netscape mail (4.7) and I was happy too. Last year, I've been working at a company with Outlook. This is the most confusing software I've ever had, especially when you try to configure it. "Adding a mail account" anyone? Go to Options, Properties, blah blah blah? I've had to do it several time, but really every single time I've had to mess around for a while before finding it.
I know (though I admit I haven't ever used it) that OE is much inferior to Outlook. Wow great piece of software this must be!
While I agree that the inconsistency and weird folder management are a real problem, I don't think Mozilla mail is inferior to OE, not to mention the viruses, by the way...
XUL (Score:3, Insightful)
The major detractor was the user interface, since it didn't feel like a Windows application. This was probably due to a poor understanding by the authors of XUL [mozilla.org].
Oh yeah, his observations are invalid because he doesn't know about XUL. You know what? Not many people know or care about XUL. What they want is a browser that looks consistent with the rest of their applications on their particular OS. Your comment is invalid.
hey, you started it (Score:1, Insightful)
At developer rates? When they can have IE (supported by MS?) for free?
Everything always boils down to probability, and with Microsoft you PROBABLY WILL get burned sometime or another.
I'd call *this* FUD.
Re:Misunderstanding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise known as the art of making everyone fit the same mold and use the same thing, which is somewhat similar to the art of making all tuna fit into those little cans you get at Albertson's.
Personally, I have a real problem with corporations funding research to find the best way to get the most money out of people's pockets while spending as little as possible, then passing this "research" off as science. Our schools in the U.S. are seriously infected with this type of "research."
Frankly, I'd rather have the "Tripping Badger" UI over the "Canned Tuna" UI any day, especially if I can heavily customize it to my liking; that MS UI is some seriously horrid crap, especially the new XP, ugh.
Thanks for the laugh SpatchMonkey, the "designed by a herd of badgers on acid" was funny stuff.
Best of days to you.
Re:ie vs mozilla (Score:3, Insightful)
I use Mozilla on OS X for lots of reasons, but I have never understood why it has to be a single monolithic app. Why should I load up the e-mail client when I want to use the browser (or vice versa).
Re:tabs (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they need a "do not download anything from this server" option and another option to include a list of the usual suspects.
Re:IE does tabs better (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:its not a xul issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, but the only interface that is natural to use is the nipple. From then on, everything is learned.
I've designed GUI's. You either go with something existing which almost fits your needs, or you go the "innovative" way. "Natural to use" doesn't enter into it.
Re:There is no major reason to switch... (Score:3, Insightful)
I develop in Mozilla, and if it looks good I know it'll look good in all browsers. I used to be completely anal about checking every single browser under the sun, but once I started using Mozilla as my primary dev platform I discovered that this was almost totally unnecessary. I'll run everything through the various platform checks before shipping to a client, but it boils down to this: if it works properly in Mozilla, it'll work fine everywhere.
Working in this business is all about producing as efficiently as possible (You have to when the client keeps changing ideas and deadlines on you). Why would I choose to write and revise when I can write once?
The licensing is also a feature! (Score:3, Insightful)
To paraphrase Richard Stallman: Why can't we talk about freedom? Why don't any of these reviews make any effort to explain mozilla's licensing and why users should care about it? (Mozilla has a license that allows multiple companies to make competing implementations, and that gives users rights instead of making draconian restrictions. This is an important different that ordinary users can appreciate.)
I can understand why reviewers would feel they should mainly focus on features and the user interface. But to overlook these huge licensing issues completely, to not factor them into the final rating at all, is to ignore a huge glaring difference between mozilla and the competition.
--Bruce F.
Re:Not a poor understanding of XUL (Score:4, Insightful)
It is certainly clear that a program for windows, lacking some spectacular feature, will sell only if it follows the arbitrary conventions of the windows interface. But no one is trying to make a profit selling mozilla for windows.
Back to foolish consistency: a program should follow the conventions of other software only if it does not decrease the usability. As an example, the most useful menu in emacs is the buffer menu; everything else is either seldom used or more easily accessed from the keyboard. This menu has been moved in version 21 from its prime location at the left so that the File menu can be in its "conventional" location. Maybe some people are comforted by this bit of familiarity, but this should not be confused with usability.
Remember, the moz interface is easily and infinitely malleable. This is a program where people could test out hundreds new ideas on interface design, now that it is (mostly) stable.
Re:The interface *is* a problem (Score:2, Insightful)
And when Microsoft used those *scientific* measurements they came up with MS Bob.
No major reason to switch? (Score:3, Insightful)
[...] but there is no major reason to switch over.
Ha! Here are 8 reasons [microsoft.com] to start with. 16 more [microsoft.com] if you're using IE 5.5.
doesn't FEEL like a windows app? come again?? (Score:1, Insightful)
If mozilla for windows (I've never used it, but do use Galeon on the linux box) has buttons, scroll bars, uses the wheel on the wheel mouse, and if cut-and-paste works, who cares!!
How does Ars feel about Java apps, using the Ice GUI (or something similar, forget what it's called, it's the light GUI)?? I have zero problem using anything which was made using Swing, and again, although my sister doesn't know what Swing is, she can still use LimeWire.
Is anyone going to tell me that winamp/xmms or some version of the quicktime movie player, along with some dvd players, etc., which are supposed to look like components in a stereo rack, are any better?? But, even these are usable, once you figure out where the frell to click.
Now, older linux versions of netscape, or xman perhaps - those, while having GUIs, are enough to bugger someone...
I also disagree with the notion that IE is more polished - I always feel as if I've lost of my computer while using IE, and not only because of pop-ups. Maybe I'm just a control freak.
kmeleon? (Score:3, Insightful)
what about kmeleon?
it may not have had an update since last october, and I may never have tried it, but it's gecko with native windows widgets and even designed to look and act like IE.
I am sure that they could use some help...
That kind of project (though perhaps with some more attentive/dedicated people behind it) is the one we need to have a stronger opponent to IE. And no, Opera just doesn't cut it for mainstream audiences; banners==bad
Image zoom as a bookmarklet is GREAT! (Score:2, Insightful)
But when using Bookmarklets [squarefree.com] in Mozilla, you can have all sorts of handy functions just one mouse-click away on your personal toolbar!
The most usefull bookmarklet in my opinion is 'zoom image in. As I work with a big resolution for graphical work, lot's of things tend to get renderd rather small when browsing. It's understandable, but still an anoyance. So when I discovered Image zoom I was, as you can imagine, absolutely delighted!
And since Mozilla 1.1b, Mozilla has REALLY speeded up and is wonderfull to use.
And as for Mozilla's GUI;
If you want integration you should use Galeon on Linux and K-Meleon on Windows. They are actually intended for end-user usage, Mozilla is just for test purposes!
But it *does* feel like a WIndows program! (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoever decided to use the windows keybindings on all platforms *needs* the crack pipe, uhh, anatomically relocated. This may be difficult in light of the pre-existing cranial-rectal inversion.
Ctrl-shift-L to open a web address. Sure, why not--it's not like there was a pre-existing standard command on *nix . . . .
hawk