Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla 1.4 Released 421

Posted by simoniker from the moz-strutting-like-suedehead dept.
Phil writes "MozillaZine is reporting that Mozilla 1.4 has been released for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. The new version is pretty similar to today's Netscape 7.1, which is based on the same code, but lacks Netscape's proprietary features. More information can be found in the release notes. The release can be downloaded from mozilla.org's releases page or via FTP. From here on, mozilla.org's focus shifts to Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla Thunderbird." The official release news is now up on Mozilla's main page, so let the downloading begin.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 1.4 Released More

Mozilla 1.4 Released

Comments Filter:

  • YES! (Score:4, Funny)

    by tobocop ( 678528 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:03PM (#6333920)
    Sexy, finally I can trash that old Netscape 7.1 installation!

  • Must be browser day (Score:3, Funny)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:05PM (#6333944)
    Earlier there was an article on netscape.... now one on mozilla.

    That's too much browser info to digest in one day. Get some PS2 articles in here. ;)

  • Install caveat (Score:5, Informative)

    by John Zebedee ( 659358 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:05PM (#6333945)
    Just installed the windows version: release notes don't require an uninstall of previous versions (in my case 1.3.1) but V1.4 barfed every time it started until I had rebooted and uninstalled 1.3.1. Seems fine since though

    • Re:Install caveat (Score:3, Informative)

      by H310iSe ( 249662 )
      I can confirm this - I overinstalled many other versions of mozilla with no problems but when I overinstalled 1.3.2 with 1.4rc3 I had lots of rendering problems (win2k server).

      So definately uninstall previous versions, or install 1.4 into a new directory. It does recommend this in the install documentation, btw.

      • Re:Install caveat (Score:5, Informative)

        by mu_wtfo ( 224511 ) * on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:17PM (#6334091) Homepage
        Yes, new versions of Mozilla should always be installed into a clean directory. Installing over top of previous versions is known to cause problems.

        From the relnotes: Note: It is recommended that you uninstall previous versions of Mozilla before installing Mozilla 1.4. This will not delete your bookmarks, history, cookies and other information which is stored in your profile directory.

    • Re:Install caveat (Score:5, Informative)

      by missing000 ( 602285 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:24PM (#6334143)
      I just did an install over 1.3 on w2k and everything went very smoothly.

      The installation is aware of mozilla.exe running, and prompts that it is shutting it down.

      I didn't even have to restart.

      I'll see how well the update goes on a redhat box when I get home from work :)

  • NTLM Security! (Score:5, Informative)

    by kawika ( 87069 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:05PM (#6333949)
    This is a very big addition. Some of the intranet sites I use require NTLM to access and I was never able to use Mozilla.

    • MS Content Insecurity! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:35PM (#6334214) Homepage Journal
      Do any web servers besides IIS use NTLM? If your intranet sites are running IIS, then it's probably safe to assume that the content is full of IE-specific hacks. Especially if pages were authored with various Microsoft Office applications.

      Is anyone at Mozilla working on a quirks [mozilla.org] mode for Word- or Excel-generated HTML? Don't even think about Powerpoint!

      • Re:MS Content Insecurity! (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Microsoft Proxy Server uses NTLM by default, so this prohibits some users from seeing any webservers.

  • hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:05PM (#6333951) Homepage
    not to be an ass, but is it really news worthy every time Moz makes a release? Didn't we get headlines for 1.4 RC2 and RC3? I use moz exclusively, but even I don't think it's news worthy everytime Moz has a new release (reminds me of the nightly releases news for Phoenix a while back).

    • Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shenkerian ( 577120 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:08PM (#6333999)
      You make a fair comment, but this is Mozilla's new stable build, and the last one distributed as a monolithic application bundle. The stories about the RC's were mostly free advertising for last-minute stress testers, because this stable build has to last until they completely separate the innards into separate applications.

    • Yes, it is. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:12PM (#6334036)
      Mozilla is one of the 'pillars' of OSS software, along with GCC, the Linux kernel, KDE, GNOME, and Apache (I'm probably forgetting some too). It's important to hype it up and keep us informed so we can test and push the technology. If we were all still using Mozilla 1.0 there wouldn't _BE_ a 1.4 release for a LONG time.

      Slashdot is the appropriate place to make such release announcements. If you don't like them taking up space here, turn off mozilla stories in your prefs, if you want to track Mozilla closer turn on the Mozilla slashbox.

    • Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:19PM (#6334110) Journal
      "is it really news worthy every time Moz makes a release?"

      No. The announcements for RC1, RC2, and RC3 were really unnecessary.

      However, this release--1.4 final--is definitely worthy of a post. This is the official 'stable production' release (the first since 1.0, I think), and is also the final relase in the old development path. If there were only three Mozilla announcements on /. in its entire history, they would be for (1)the initial creation of the project, (2)the 1.0 milestone, and (3)the 1.4 release.

      • Re:hmmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Arker ( 91948 )

        The RC posts are great. They attract stress-testers and help the debugging process move. If you don't like em, don't click the freakin link.

  • This was my Post!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by nite_warrior ( 151737 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:05PM (#6333956)
    Damn, I was so close to get a post on the front page... anyways glad to see a new release from everybody's favorite browser (after konqueror, opera, lynks and telnet to port 80)
  • W2K, just installed it. Attempt to launch it and...

    mozilla.exe - Application Error

    The instruction at "0x610f0769" referenced memory at "0x4349656f". The memory could not be "read".

    Click on OK to terminate the program
    Click on CANCEL to debug the program

    • Re:Lovely... (Score:5, Funny)

      by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:09PM (#6334003)
      That's the classic 0x610f0769 bug.

      Increment by 1 so it reads 0x610f0770.

      Results may vary.
    • Just checking, did you do a clean install, or install over an older version?

      Regardless of that, perhaps some of the lovely folks in #mozillazine on irc.mozilla.org can help you out.

    • Me too!! I just installed it on my Windows 2000 SP4 (all updates) and I am getting stupid crash!
    • Yup. Me too. Exactly the same error (well, same instruction, different memory. Mine tried to reference "0x4d7a6f6d"). Clean install as well. Sounds like someone forgot to initialise their pointer...

      I installed it since I'd read a post here claiming that someone had gone back to Moz from Opera 7 after using 1.4, but if this is the kind of quality we can expect from Moz I think I will stick with Opera...

    • Oh, it couldn't be "read". In reality, the CPU was going to jump and execute it TOO, weren't you! Oh, no, you have "assertions" that won't let you do that.

      Psshaw.

      Mozilla, you lie out of both sides of your mouth.

      [this comment posted with Mozilla (TM)]
    • The instruction at "0x610f0769" referenced memory at "0x4349656f". The memory could not be "read".

      Thanks, "Windows." That was a really "useful" error "message."

    • The fix! (Score:4, Informative)

      by antdude ( 79039 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @12:05AM (#6337031) Homepage Journal
      See comment #5 at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208205 #c5 ... It worked for me. :)

  • lacks Netscape's proprietary features (Score:5, Funny)

    by tubabeat ( 605286 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:06PM (#6333973)
    Like mandatory pop-ups...

  • Same as RC3 (Score:5, Informative)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:06PM (#6333974)
    As was pointed out to me in the recent Netscape 7.1 [slashdot.org] story, Mozilla 1.4 final is the same code as Mozilla RC3. (Check the "about:" page to see the idential release date.) So if you have RC3 installed, you can safely leave it there without worrying about major changes.

    • Re:Same as RC3 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not only are there no major changes, there are no changes at all. The files are exactly the same. 1.4-RC3 is 1.4.

      • Re:Same as RC3 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Deven ( 13090 ) <deven@ties.org> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @10:18AM (#6339358) Homepage
        Not only are there no major changes, there are no changes at all. The files are exactly the same. 1.4-RC3 is 1.4.

        This is the way release candidates should always be handled, yet it seems they rarely are. How many times have bugs snuck into an official "stable" Linux kernel release that weren't in the preceding "pre" kernel? A strict policy of only releasing final versions as re-releases of release candidates would reduce this danger...

    • Re:Same as RC3 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Wolfier ( 94144 )
      Are there news on features that let users block any mime type per site, just like images?

      Or throttling the CPU usage of Flash/Java applets so it won't grind to a halt when I open a few pages with flash ads?

  • Same as Mozilla 1.4rc3 (Score:4, Informative)

    by ChazeFroy ( 51595 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:07PM (#6333984) Homepage
    This release is the same thing as 1.4rc3. Log on to their FTP site and compare file sizes. Even the Windows installer says "1.4.0.2003062408".

    If you already installed 1.4rc3, don't bother wasting your time with 1.4 final.
    • If you already installed 1.4rc3, don't bother wasting your time with 1.4 final

      You waited just long enough for me to download and install 1.4 to tell me that what I already had was exactly the same. Thanks for nothing man! :(

      The good news is that my dsl was actually working at full speed for a few minutes earlier and so the download and install only took about 3 minutes.

  • Got it, love it (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrZeebo ( 331403 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:08PM (#6333995) Homepage
    I used to be a Mozilla-only user. However, over time, it seemed that the speed of Mozilla started getting worse and worse, especially under Windows. On my dual-boot machine, I kept with Moz under Linux, but switched to Opera 7 under Windows. For the time, Opera was much quicker, not just at starting up, but seemingly at rendering web pages as well.

    When I noticed that 1.4 had been released (in the comments for the Netscape 7.1 story) I figured I'd give Mozilla another try under Windows.

    I was amazed.

    Mozilla 1.4 is noticeably faster than previous versions under Windows, and seems on-par with Opera 7. For a while, I was running Opera 7 for browsing and Thunderbird for mail... I think now I'm going back to Mozilla for both.

    Once the xft-enabled RPMs are up for Red Hat 9, I'll give it a try on that OS as well, but, as I said, speed didn't seem to be an issue there to begin with.

    Bravo, Mozilla. Firebird is certainly fast, but some people like the integration of the web/e-mail programs, and it's nice to see a speed boost for us as well.

  • I would like to get this, but... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Meat Blaster ( 578650 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:08PM (#6333998)
    While Mozilla seems like a state-of-the-art platform in a couple of respects, I have qualms about using software that accentuates features over reliability. For example, Internet Explorer 4 and above are proven to work with Year 2000; on the other hand, even in this most recent release, the README [mozilla.org] states:

    We do not guarantee that any source code or executable code available from the mozilla.org domain is Year 2000 compliant.

    We've been in the year 2000 for a while now. How can an organization continue to release code that has not been tested to comply with four digit dates? This seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

    • Re:I would like to get this, but... (Score:4, Funny)

      by caferace ( 442 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:12PM (#6334037) Homepage
      I don't know why you haven't upgraded to 2003. I did it nearly seven months ago...

    • Re:I would like to get this, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:15PM (#6334064) Journal
      You're mistaking a lack of guarantee with a lack of testing.

      Mozilla isn't guaranteed to do ANYTHING. It's not guaranteed to be Y2k "compliant," it's not guaranteed to cause no damage to your hard drive, it's not guaranteed to cause SOME damage to your hard drive! Nor is it guaranteed to render web pages correctly, avoid sleeping with your spouse, or save the world.

      The y2k non-guarantee was put up many years ago, because nearly every organisation on the planet was being hounded with the "are you y2k compliant?" question. Mozilla is just as non-compliant today as they were then, which is to say that nobody has found any issues.

      Mozilla HAS been tested to work with four digit dates, and also been tested to render almost all web pages properly (certainly all proper web pages). It has NOT been guaranteed to do these things.

      Seriously, download 1.4 and give it a go. I think you'll be very happy with its behaviour.
    • Excuse me, as far as I know almost EVERY piece of software has a warning attached that says that it may or may not work at all, every OSS piece of software I've seen has a warning about 'fitness or merchantability' in it, meaning 'sure, use it for your missile targetting systems, but you can't sue us if you get fried.'

    • Re:I would like to get this, but... (Score:5, Funny)

      by jhunsake ( 81920 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:30PM (#6334185) Journal
      Oh come on! We're talking about a web browser here, not your respirator.

  • RPMS ... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Mr. Mai ( 587155 )
    rpms normally are available 3 days after the initial release so dont despair =)
  • I like the fact there have been three decent downloads in the past week...Mozilla, Netscape, and Safari. It kind of kills the argument "well of course Mozilla is faster, it was just released and Netscape has been around for the past few months". It'll make it easier to actual performance tests for similar products released all around the same time.

    Good googly I have a lot of downloading to do tonight when I get home...
  • Do website icons work for anybody the way I think they should work? I get the website icon in the URL bar, on the tab itself, but NOT in my bookmark list, which seems to contradict what the HELP file says. Can anyone confirm this?

    • Re:Favicons? (Score:3, Informative)

      by mu_wtfo ( 224511 ) *
      What you are seeing is the correct (well, intended) behavior. There have been issues with favicons/site icons for some time, since before 1.0. They've been pulled out, put back in, and pulled out again. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113574 goes over most of the issues, and can point you at most of the other relevant bugs.

      As I recall, however, Mozilla Firebird *does* do favicons in the bookmark menu.

      • Thanks. I just finished reading the *many* issues with favicons in bugzilla. It's not exactly a critical issue, but I expect my nearly perfect browser to be, well, nearly perfect! ;-) I think I'm going to try Firebird on my home machine tonite and see how well it works.
      • I hadn't noticed this until just now, when I looked more closely at the Release Notes: Mozilla's bookmarks have been overhauled. Bookmarks now include a root level folder, the ability to have two differently named bookmarks pointing at the same location, site icons in the Bookmark Manager and Bookmarks Sidebar, and separators now have support for labels.

        So site icons seem to work everywhere except the Bookmarks menu. Cool!

  • BitTorrent (Score:5, Informative)

    by cos(0) ( 455098 ) <pmw+slashdot@qnan.org> on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:10PM (#6334024) Homepage
    Get a BitTorrent download [myip.org] here!

    • Re:BitTorrent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dahan ( 130247 ) <khym@azeotrope.org> on Monday June 30, 2003 @05:23PM (#6334602)
      This reminds me... shouldn't Mozilla provide checksums and/or PGP signatures for these files? While I'm not 100% trusting of files on mozilla.org (servers can, and have been, compromised and files trojaned), I don't trust software from random .torrents at all...

      FWIW, this torrent is probably fine--it's identical to the one on www.mozilla.org. Checksums are:
      MD5(mozilla-win32-1.4-installer.exe)= 28cb37dfe56476fe0c5a74689cdc0063
      SHA1(mozilla-win32-1.4-installer.exe)= c46336c7ceeeaa349f2546c1009f53271b186213

      But you shouldn't take my word for it... Mozilla should be providing checksums; their distribution build instructions [mozilla.org] even recommend making a MD5SUM file.

  • GTK2 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mistah Blue ( 519779 )

    Anybody here have an idea how long we'll have to wait for GTK2 builds? I'm spoiled by the 1.4RC1 GTK2 build on RH9.

    • Honestly curious, what's the difference?

      I was building Mozilla with GTK2 on my box for a while, but moved back to GTK because 2 was 'crashy'. I didn't notice any difference besides very minor widget appearance changes. What's the draw to GTK2? Are there any 'real' advantages?
    • The GTK2 builds are done by Chris Blizzard, a mozilla.org staff member who works at RedHat. There weren't any (that I could find) done for RC2 or RC3, but I'm still hopeful that we'll see one for 1.4 final. Perhaps he's waiting for http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201209 to be fixed. (-moz-opacity makes things invisible in GTK2 port)

  • also released today... (Score:3, Funny)

    by pb ( 1020 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:15PM (#6334066)
    Wouldn't it be great if you could get some sort of 'sidebar' that told you what software has been released today, instead of having to post new /. stories every time? Well, until such a feature is implemented, or a new site is devoted to such things, I guess we'll just have to keep track of all the software releases the old fashioned way, by releasing new stories every time Netscape, Mozilla, or indeed any other software package that our readers might find relevant is released.

    I know, it's a tough job, but some site in the open source community needs to take this on. Now some of you might say this gets in the way of actual news, but I don't think there's actually that much risk of that here. If it pushes another Anime story off the front page, I think that's a risk I'm willing to take just to make sure that I have the latest version of Mozilla available to me. And I'm sure the rest of you will agree, once you see the new vision for slashdot's software section, which will soon greatly boost our daily story posting, as well as provide reviews of all the software, and meaningless license debates, which will surely degenerate into GPL misunderstandings and anti-BSD flamewars, and more zealotry! As you can plainly see, everybody wins.

    Also Released Recently Today:

    - CodeTek VirtualDesktop 2.3.5
    - dnspython 1.0.0 (Stable)
    - Alt+Connect 2.5.7/9 (Development)
    - Advanced Bash Scripting Guide 1.9 (Stable)
    - bes-cms 0.3
    - BlogPlanet 1.0.2
    - PhotoGen 1.9b
    - imgSeek 0.7.2
    - The Tamber Project 1.2.10 (Pogo)
    - OSSP fsl 1.2.0
    - Minimalist Queue Services 0.0.3
    - OSSP l2 0.9.2
    - Cyrus SASL 2.1.14 (SASLv2)
    - Bugzero 2.7
    - tclperl 2.5
    - tclpython 3.1
    - PHPXref 0.3
    - SimpleData 3.0.17
    - Postfix 2.0.13 (Stable)
    - Firepass 1.1.1a
    - Nmap 3.30 (Stable)
    - GKrellM 2.1.14 (GTK 2.0)
    [...]

    ...watch slashdot.org for updates!

  • wow, bug-city! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:15PM (#6334068)
    Too bad, so sad. Moz 1.4 is fulla da bugs.

    Within 1 minute, I found that it's listing sans-serif fonts as serif, and serif fonts as sans-serif. Yikes.

    Also some weirdness in the toolbar buttons with vertical alignment. (Back & Forward buttons 'valigned' to the top, whilst Reload & Stop buttons are on the bottom). Bizarro.

    At least this is the FIRST time a Mozilla release has actually NOT decided to make itself the default browser in spite of my always telling it not to. One bug fixed, yay! :)

    • Re:wow, bug-city! (Score:5, Informative)

      by nathana ( 2525 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:25PM (#6334151)
      Also some weirdness in the toolbar buttons with vertical alignment. (Back & Forward buttons 'valigned' to the top, whilst Reload & Stop buttons are on the bottom). Bizarro.

      I've seen stuff like this happen when you install a new version of Mozilla on top of an old version, or you install a new version and still continue to use your old profile.

      Try wiping out your old profile after backing up your bookmarks and mail (rm -r ~/.mozilla/ or delete Mozilla under Application Data in Windows), and let Mozilla 1.4 generate a new one for you. After that, you may find that all your problems have disappeared!

      -- Nathan
      • Nope, still font weirdness, though it is different now. There are a mix of serif and sans-serif fonts in each listing, though the columns are still mislabeled, and I have to have it select 'serif' fonts to get the 'sans serif' font I want.

        The button label weirdness is, however, gone. Yay! Thanks for the advice. I'm temping on a piece of crap laptop and it had some old profiles laying around (though not Moz itself). Whew, stinky.

        So, it's still got problems, and the installation of Moz is still pretty ridic

    • Re:wow, bug-city! (Score:4, Informative)

      by otherwhere ( 79937 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:50PM (#6334329)
      Within 1 minute, I found that it's listing sans-serif fonts as serif, and serif fonts as sans-serif. Yikes.

      Actually, it's allowing you to select _any_ font you want to be displayed when the page author has suggested serif, it's not saying "these are serif fonts, pick one". Therefore, both dropdowns contain all installed fonts. It's a feature, not a bug.

      I will admit, however, that toolbar weirdness is probably not a feature.

      • Sweet - I don't know how I missed that, but okay, you're definitely right!

        That's a cool feature, now that I think about it. Now I can specify no fucking serif fonts EVER. *ahhhhh* 'Trebuchet MS' goodness wherever I browse. Schweet.

        Okay, so my only gripe about it is the crappy handling of old Moz profile data left lying around, which is hardly a big deal to me. Yayness and goodness.

        danka for de 411

  • WinOSXnux? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:16PM (#6334077) Homepage Journal
    "MozillaZine is reporting that Mozilla 1.4 has been released for Windows, Mac OS and Linux.

    What the fsck! Are the editors even awake! Come one guys, read the damn article! There is nothing in the article that says it's released for those systems, especially not the implication that it's released JUST for those systems. Mozilla 1.4 has been released for all platforms!

    The systems that Mozilla 1.4 work on are: Linux (all architectures), GNU/HURD, IRIX, Tru4, BSD/OS, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Windows, OSX, OS/2, BeOS. There are probably others systems as well...

    • Re:WinOSXnux? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 )
      > The systems that Mozilla 1.4 work on are: Linux (all architectures), GNU/HURD, IRIX, Tru4, BSD/OS, Solaris

      $ ./run-mozilla.sh
      ld.so.1: ./mozilla-bin: fatal: relocation error: file ./mozilla-bin: symbol gtk_set_locale: referenced symbol not found

      Really? Solaris?

      Not yet. (Yeah, it's the goddamn GTK libraries, and which compiler they were built with this week. And which things you'll break if you replace 'em. And where the hell do you get 'em?)

      Rant: Mozilla binary tarballs for Solaris 2.6/7/8

    • Re:WinOSXnux? (Score:3, Informative)

      by bheerssen ( 534014 )
      Uh, it was released for just those systems. Although the article did not say one way or the other, a click through to the mozilla download directory [mozilla.org] would have revealed the following mozilla builds:

      mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-1.4-installer.tar.gz 30-Jun-2003 12:38 95k
      mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-1.4-sea.tar.gz 30-Jun-2003 12:40 13.4M
      mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-1.4.tar.gz 24-Jun-2003 11:38 11.9M
      mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-egcs112-1.4.tar.gz 30-Jun-2003 17:03 11.8M
      mozilla-mac-Mac

  • Proprietary "features" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ikeya ( 7401 )
    The new version is pretty similar to today's Netscape 7.1, which is based on the same code, but lacks Netscape's proprietary features.

    Uhh... and it's a bad thing that Mozilla lacks these "features"? I personally like Mozilla with less crap. Oh well. To each their own...

    ikeya

  • Problems I have with Mozilla 1.3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by truesaer ( 135079 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:18PM (#6334102) Homepage
    Hopefully these things will be addressed in Mozilla 1.4. I have been trying to transition from Internet Explorer, but it has been a bit rough because Mozilla is still missing some of the polish that IE has.


    1) I still find an occasional page that renders incorrectly. Or maybe what its actually doing is rendering correctly due to spec compliance. But I don't really care what the problem is, I just want them to always render like other browsers.


    2) There are weird problems with keyboard keys not working right sometimes. For example, occasionally if I click in the document that has been displayed, the arrow keys will not move the page. Or in forms the home/end keys, etc. dont work. It seems like these events aren't being captured, although I can't find any consistent way to cause it.


    3) When I view my rental queue in Netflix, Mozilla crashes completely. This is the biggest problem...other things are just irritating, but I can't get rid of IE while this still happens. Again, maybe Netflix is using improper javascript or something. But, my perspective as a user is only "does it work." In any case, the browser should be able to handle nasty code in a way that doesn't cause a complete crash even if it infinite loops or something.


    Despite these kinds of annoyances, I am going to stick with Mozilla. I love tabbed browsing, and I really like being able to bookmark a set of tabs that I may want open for reference while working on a project. 1.3 was the first version I started using regularly because my form filler/password manager finally supported Mozilla, and with googlebar all my needs are met.


    I guess I'll go see now if 1.4 has addressed any of these issues...

    • Re:Problems I have with Mozilla 1.3 (Score:5, Informative)

      by hawkbug ( 94280 ) <psx.fimble@com> on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:26PM (#6334153) Homepage
      As far as pages not loading correctly as your gripe #1 - this is not Mozilla's fault in my cases. It's IE's. How? Well, lets look at this page for a moment:

      http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/clubhouse?team=col

      It looks like total ass in Mozilla, and basically any browser I've tried besides IE. It used to look just fine BEFORE that damned MSN ad bar that takes up most of the screen now. You can write terrible code, and have it look fine in IE because IE just ignores a lot of mistakes. I see this as a bad thing, because when browsers try to correctly render a page according to standards, it makes you think the browser is broken and not the page.

      BTW, I have tried repeatedly to notify the ESPN guys about all their messed up pages, but obviously nobody cares as long as they get their MSN money.
    • Mozilla 1.4 on Win 98, Win ME, and Win XP -- NetFlix works fine in all of them for me.
    • Can't believe that you got modded down as flamebait. Must be an idiot with moderator points.

      At any rate while I have sympathy for your points, consider it from the point of view of mozilla. There is an internationally agreed-upon set of standards on how to write HTML. A website that doesn't follow those standards is broken, in the same way that a PCI card that requires a nonstandard voltage is broken. If you got a card that didn't fit in any PCI slots other than the ones on motherboards made by the same ma

  • so... (Score:2)

    by di0s ( 582680 )
    From here on, mozilla.org's focus shifts to Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla Thunderbird.
    So what ever happend to Mozilla Camero and Mozilla Trans-Am?

  • Type and find... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @04:24PM (#6334146) Journal
    I'll go ahead and stick my neck out: It may be newer to Netscape rather than Mozilla, but I can't tell you how much I love little things like "Find As You Type [mozilla.org]"... This is kinda second-nature stuff to those of us who commonly use vi & co..... to find a link, if the browser has focus, just type a word to find a link containing that word, or "/" followed by the word to search the text. Bad part: "/" + "Enter" won't go ahead and look for the next word, instead you have to do "Ctl+G" or "F3"... bah! No regexp support either, at least as far as I know.... maybe not useful for a ton of users, but wouldn't it rock?
  • I downloaded Firebird 0.6 last night because Mozilla was still in release candidate mode. If I'd realised they were serious about the term Release Candidate, I would've just grabbed that.

    Does anyone know if anyone is working on a usable 'save tabs' feature? When I use Opera, and accidentally close it (or it crashes), I load it up and all my previous windows are there. I *need* this feature because I can't just browse in a single window, and I have yet to use a browser that doesn't crash after a few arns
  • Yeah baby! Let's get Netscape 7.1 instead of Mozilla for all of those proprietary features I want like... uhhh...

    AIM? Yeah, right. Other than that Netscape 7.1 has _less_ features* than Mozilla 1.4, as well as having the wholesome open-source-goodiness impaired.

    *Does it still not block pop up ads from AOL.com BTW? Nice trick there I must say.

  • SGI IRIX version? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by minnkota ( 576497 )
    Is there an IRIX version of either Mozilla 1.4 or Netscape 7.1 (as they use basicly the same code base)? I see that there are some links to some older builds of 1.4 and to a nightly build from May, but I can't seem to find 1.4 final. Would be nice to run the latest browser on my cheap "ebay special" Octane.
  • There's no fix in the final version for the java plugin issue [mozilla.org] affecting Redhat 7.x users.

    Any good ideas for how to fix this?

  • Why is Firebird that wonderful? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jbs0902 ( 566885 ) on Monday June 30, 2003 @05:12PM (#6334500)
    I hate to say that the Emperor has no clothes, but ...

    I haven't bothered to update from Moz 1.2.1 because it works and I am happy with it. I don't see how the browser (the only portion I use) has improved significantly. From the 1.3.x and 1.4 release notes, it seems most improvements have come to the newsgroups/mail.

    As for Firebird (a.k.a. the browser formerly known as Phoenix), is it just me or is this the most IE-clone, kiddie like browser. I know we're all supposed to say how much better Firebird is, but I don't feel like an adult while using it. Most of the settings are only reachable (unless I am missing something) from the about:config screen. The preferences (under the Tools menu, just like IE) is so icon centric. Maybe Firebird is trying to reach out to the mom/pop crowd, but could I have an option to put it in advanced mode? In addition, NONE of my XUL/XPI/whatever plug-ins/skins work. The plug-ins and tabs are what makes Moz worth running in my opinion.

    Yeah, the bloat comments have legitimacy, but I have HDD and CPU speed to waste (except when gaming). The only thing I am concerned about is the way Win Moz 1.2.1 seems to memory-leak.

  • Old easter egg (Score:4, Informative)

    by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamec.umich@edu> on Monday June 30, 2003 @05:38PM (#6334703) Homepage Journal
    This easter egg has existed since the Netscape/Mozilla 0.9.x days, but it's still neat. Type "about:mozilla" in the address box and see what comes up...

    Try it in IE too. You get something rather cryptic, to say the least... No, I don't know what it means either.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost

Close