Mozilla 1.4 : Finally worth the move - Page 3

Asher · July 21, 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Asher, as per your 21-07-2003 22:28 post:

WTF? I don't know what you're talking about, what you did, or why. (Usually a spam has at least a little backup to it

)

It shows you how to make zoom apply to those CSS-fixed fonts, too.

mrmitchell · July 21, 2003, 23:36

Quote:

It's just a perfect example of all of the little bugs that you'll continue to run into Mozilla that somehow drives most people back to IE after toying with it for a bit.

Oh, I'm so terribly sorry...

By the way, I'm so sure that it's a little bug in IE that it doesn't really magnify all the text? For example, it doesn't magnify the body of the forum posts here and it gets mighty annoying. At least Moz does what it claims to do, even if they get it from whiners like you because of it.

mrmitchell · July 21, 2003, 23:37

Ash: Well? How do you do it?

(Oh, and while you're at it, could you show us the same 200% zoom of the half-bug that you found in Moz, except in IE?

)

Asher · July 21, 2003, 23:40

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Oh, I'm so terribly sorry...

By the way, I'm so sure that it's a little bug in IE that it doesn't really magnify all the text? For example, it doesn't magnify the body of the forum posts here and it gets mighty annoying. At least Moz does what it claims to do, even if they get it from whiners like you because of it.

That's not a bug, CSS size is specified as fixed from the websites. Technically, it's IE that's being W3C compliant here and Mozilla breaking it.

If you want to override the CSS sizes, the only way you're supposed to do it is with a user CSS sheet, which overrides the site's sheets (which IE lets you d0).

As for the 200% bug, it manifests itself in every >100% zoom setting in Mozilla, not just 200%.

200% is ridiculously large which is why it's a useless setting. Another symbol of computer geeks implementing features no one needs.

mrmitchell · July 21, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

200% is ridiculously large which is why it's a useless setting. Another symbol of computer geeks implementing features no one needs.

What if I want to build up that middle finger like I talked about earlier?

mrmitchell · July 21, 2003, 23:43

!

I've been too lazy to go back down under 200%, and apparently if you just refresh then it works fine.

I'm sure you already knew this though?

Asher · July 21, 2003, 23:44

So Mozilla's code is not just buggy, but inconsistent?

Marvelous.

If refresh can show a different rendering of the same page, something is fundamentally broken with the browser.

mrmitchell · July 21, 2003, 23:46

You never told me how to make Zoom apply to CSS-fixed fonts in IE, like I asked.

Then, I would be able to do my own testing of it....

Asher · July 21, 2003, 23:48

Tools -> Internet Options -> Accessibility
Check "Ignore font sizes".

mrmitchell · July 21, 2003, 23:51

Okay, okay, it's only a Moz bug.

However, mind you, is that really worth losing all the security and easiness to go back to IE? Having an obscure unnoticable zoom bug that can be fixed with one click?

(Oh, and the speed too--I hadn't gone back to IE in a while so when I saw how slow it loaded the apolyton.net front page I was shocked...Moz really is faster

)

Asher · July 21, 2003, 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Okay, okay, it's only a Moz bug.

However, mind you, is that really worth losing all the security and easiness to go back to IE? Having an obscure unnoticable zoom bug that can be fixed with one click?

I've already listed more here that annoy me with Mozilla's interface. Not only that, but the slower interface and WAY slower load times put me off. In addition to site incompatibilities...

Quote:

(Oh, and the speed too--I hadn't gone back to IE in a while so when I saw how slow it loaded the apolyton.net front page I was shocked...Moz really is faster

)

They load the pages the same speed on my 800MHz PC, but IE is about 3-4x faster for startup.

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 00:08

On the subject of text sizing, Google search, bookmark management and speed, Safari kicks IE's butt.

And it has tabbed browsing which people like but M$ refuses to implement. Just shows that they can't design an interface that people want to use.

Asher · July 22, 2003, 00:12

Agathon, Safari only wins selected benchmarks against IE on the Mac.

IE on the PC is 100% different code. And everyone knows it's faster since it's built into the OS.

And what's wrong with IE's bookmark management? And the Google toolbar?

And why is it better for text sizing if it can't antialias fonts under size 7/8?

Ari Rahikkala · July 22, 2003, 01:48

My build, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030721 (or the official Mozilla 1.4 release), just crashed completely out of the blue once yesterday... this was on the same day as compiling it. I'll have to see if this continues - the last build, CVS some time after the release of 1.4b, never did that IIRC. I wouldn't really use Mozilla if I could move on to Firebird, but at least version 0.6 is so unstable (because the form auto-complete breakage, probably) that I have no intent to try it again before a new release.

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 05:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Agathon, Safari only wins selected benchmarks against IE on the Mac.

As a mac user I can confidently tell you that Safari is far and away the fastest browser for Mac OS X.

I was actually a user of IE for OS 9 and it is my browser of choice when I boot back into 9 (for fun usually). IE for X has always been slow and not very good. Anyone who knew anything was using Omniweb (which was slow but had antialiasing before IE) then Chimera/Camino and now Safari.

Apple was really pissed off at the poor performance of IE on X. That's why they took Konqueror and went as quick as they could to develop it. If MS had been a bit more on the ball I doubt Safari would ever have come into being. There's a lot of talk about MS discontinuation of IE for the Mac being the reason, that's BS - no one was using it because it sucked.

Quote:

IE on the PC is 100% different code. And everyone knows it's faster since it's built into the OS.

I know that very well. IE on the PC is far superior to IE on the Mac.

Quote:

And what's wrong with IE's bookmark management? And the Google toolbar?

Isn't the Google toolbar on IE a third party add on that includes pop up blocking and spyware?

I've always found IE's favourites management to be a pain. I prefer Safari's itunes like interface (although that could be improved).

I also think that it's a black eye on MS that they don't include the option of tabbed browsing in IE. I know I've said this before and I know you don't like it, but lots of people do. They should include it as a switchable option like Safari does. This is one of the common complaints about IE and MS should really listen to their customers.

Quote:

And why is it better for text sizing if it can't antialias fonts under size 7/8?

I just meant that you didn't have to use a menu like in your pictures - it wasn't supposed to be a profound comment. And how many pages use size 7 and 8 fonts, really?

I can tell you that Safari beats any version of IE for viewing Greek Text in the Thesaurus Linguae Graeci which is something I need to use a lot. In fact the Mac is a lot better than Windows in dealing with Greek text and its funny accents, all excepting MS Office of course.

(having said that I can work around most of the problems).

It's all down to what you need.

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 05:52

Actually, I just tried reducing the text size as much as I could in Safari. It stops after a while, but the text is still quite well antialiased. I'm pretty sure that is below size 8, but if it isn't I don't see how it matters anyway. It's so small it's almost killing me to read it.

Urban Ranger · July 22, 2003, 06:04

IE is bloated. It can only achieve the apparent speed by having Windows preloading the monstrosity. If you use the "quick launch" feature of Mozilla, IE does not have any advantage in loading speed. It doesn't render faster, either.

As I pointed out before, IE does not have any built-in support for international character codes unlike Mozilla.

Agathon · July 22, 2003, 06:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

As I pointed out before, IE does not have any built-in support for international character codes unlike Mozilla.

What is it with MS? People like me have to write in two or three languages using different character sets.

I suppose Classicists are considered the lowest form of life by them.

Q Classic · July 22, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

As I pointed out before, IE does not have any built-in support for international character codes unlike Mozilla.

ie6 was able to read and write korean and japanese automatically, once i selected the option during install...

Asher · July 22, 2003, 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
IE is bloated. It can only achieve the apparent speed by having Windows preloading the monstrosity. If you use the "quick launch" feature of Mozilla, IE does not have any advantage in loading speed. It doesn't render faster, either.

The QuickLaunch feature of Mozilla does make it load faster, but still not nearly the speed of IE. Mozilla even has a slight delay when I switch windows, while IE is instant.

The problem is Mozilla's XUL interface, which is slow.

It doesn't have to be like that. Eclipse uses SWT, and is in Java, and it's way more responsive than Mozilla is...

Quote:

As I pointed out before, IE does not have any built-in support for international character codes unlike Mozilla.

And as I pointed out before, it sure as hell does. I've no idea what you're basing this off of.

Az · July 22, 2003, 09:48

Opera is my porn browser.

Imran Siddiqui · July 22, 2003, 09:49

Az: Me too

Ari Rahikkala · July 22, 2003, 10:03

Opera as a porn browser? But Mozilla's so much better for that job! Its new image rendering library is even called libpr0n!

Az · July 22, 2003, 10:05

might switch to Mozilla.

Imran Siddiqui · July 22, 2003, 10:23

Yeah, but what do you think MOUSE GESTURES are for? You can quickly hit the back button

Az · July 22, 2003, 10:26

I am highly trained in Alt+F4.

Ned · July 22, 2003, 11:37

Asher, I tried the "ignore font size" on the IE. For sites like Apolyton, it seems to work just as well as Mozilla for 200% zooms. But compare IE and Mozilla on ESPN. IE rendition is pure garbage. Mozilla is much better. Why?

BTW, I normally run at very high res. Increasing the font size to 200% really makes things highly readable to me. As I said before, the seeming lack of this feature in IE is the main reason I switched to Netscape/Mozilla. The other is those damned advertising popups that only IE does not block.

Oh, I really like tabbed browsing. The Slimbrowser I linked earlier has a new twist on tabs. If you open a new site from "favorites," it automatically places it in a new tab. This is really nice.

mrmitchell · July 22, 2003, 20:37

.

Seeing what Ned's talking about - open new tab (Moz) for ESPN.com and new window (MSIE) for ESPN.com. (I should note that Moz loads the page significantly faster.)

Indeed, they both are more difficult to read than before due to various problems but MSIE jams it together, spreads tables hideously, and generally makes the page look like ****. Moz suffers from far less problems than IE does in this arena; the page only looks bad enough to be considered "crap".

Method · July 22, 2003, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
I hate advertising. I want it to die and burn in hell. Then I want its family and extended family to die and burn in hell, and after that I will dance on its grave.

yet you have the poly store banner in every post you make

anyways, sure i'd say mozilla is vastly superior to MSIE, but it just seems very bare compared to opera (unless you count the mail client and whatnot, which i don't). besides, i can't use my middle-of-mouse-rolly-ball-thing in mozilla, and i can't seem to get new links to open in tabs (1 window/page = the devil)

Asher · July 22, 2003, 21:08

Does Mozilla even have an import-IE-favorites feature anymore?