Mozilla 1.0 rc2/Linux  | | | 
May 19th, 2002, 01:20 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Lat:36.5N, Lon:95.5W
Posts: 1,274
|  Mozilla 1.0 rc2/Linux
I am so disappointed. This release is ssooo ssllloooowwwww. 
I really did expect better, especially after how good the pre builds have been. If you haven't tried it yet, don't bother. Germ
__________________
How do you set this laser printer to stun??
| 
|  | |
May 19th, 2002, 02:10 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | may contain mild peril
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: UK
Posts: 3,329
|
hhmm... I don't use mozilla but I have it installed so that I can use galeon (requires the mozilla rendering engine). Anyway I just fired it up & it seems quite nice... isn't really slow IMO, but this is 0.9.9 not 1.0 rc2. Is the newer version noticably slower than the 0.9.x series?
Also I am using debian woody, so all my packages are just i386... including X, fluxbox & mozilla. I would think if it was going to be slow on any system it would be this one... but then I do have an XP 1800+ which may help.
Anyway... would be interested to hear some more opinions on Mozilla 1.0 rc2, anyone else using it?
Regards
eddy
__________________
I dreamt that a large eagle circled the room three times and then got into bed with me and took all the blankets.
| |
| | |
May 19th, 2002, 03:00 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Lat:36.5N, Lon:95.5W
Posts: 1,274
|
On my system, 1.0 rc2 is very noticeably slower than the 0.9.x Mozilla series. It seems very stable, just slow. And i grabbed the i686 tarball.
Germ | |
| | |
May 19th, 2002, 03:28 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | may contain mild peril
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: UK
Posts: 3,329
|
hhmmm
Oh well.. atleast stable is good.
Think I will stick with galeon  | |
| | |
May 19th, 2002, 03:42 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: chicago, IL
Posts: 80
|
What's the difference between Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 6.2.2? | |
| | |
May 19th, 2002, 03:53 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Lat:36.5N, Lon:95.5W
Posts: 1,274
|
NS 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3 are all based on Mozilla 0.9.4 | |
| | |
May 19th, 2002, 05:34 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,514
|
humm...
it seems quicker to me. I grabbed off the binary tarball and installed it
__________________
Odds are very good there are several spelling mistakes in this post.
| |
| | |
May 19th, 2002, 06:16 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Where's the beef?
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southwest, VA
Posts: 3,585
|
Well, I'm glad I can across this. I was about to install RC2. Now I'm glad I didn't. I actually like Galeon better though. It does a better job at font rendering and works pretty much the way I like it right out of the box. It's a great file browser too.
__________________
Where's Lunch?
| |
| | |
May 19th, 2002, 07:09 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Lat:36.5N, Lon:95.5W
Posts: 1,274
|
I think I've mentioned this before, but you guys really should grab Beonex. It blows both Moz and NS right out of the water. http://www.beonex.com | |
| | |
May 19th, 2002, 09:44 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | The Mad Redhatter
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: NJ
Posts: 3,552
|
i've been using mozilla 1.0 rc2 and i think it's a great browser. on redhat 7.3, it runs quite speedy and very much a worthwhile broswer. i believe it is well worth the download. i think it's the best browser short of internet explorer and that's hard to match. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Most Active Discussions  | | | | |   Recent Discussions  | | | | |
 |
hardware
prices 
