Firefox erratic behaviour

Simon · Oct 31, 2007, 00:50:56

I realised that, Rik, I was just saying that compared to the last few versions of Netscape, the AOL branding is very limited. I don't go back as far as you, but I used it before Mozilla came along, and it's what actually prompted me to use Mozilla, even though, in those days, half the websites wouldn't work on it!

Rik · Oct 31, 2007, 00:54:16

Standards used to be, shall we say, a moveable feast in the early days, with some sites only viewable with one browser. Real PITA time.

jupiter · Oct 31, 2007, 09:43:07

Quote from: Si6776 on Oct 30, 2007, 21:34:01
I've been using Netscape 9.0 recently. It's a clone of FireFox, but it seems less clunky, and has a nice layout, once you've got rid of all the toolbars and sidebars. Certainly worth a try.
http://browser.netscape.com/

Had a go with this and compared Netscape 9.0 and FF 2.0.0.8 with the same sites and within the same time frame. Netscape loaded pages far faster - really noticeably faster.

So is this just down to slicker code in writing Netscape, or FF getting too bloated, or my installation of FF?

Simon · Oct 31, 2007, 09:53:57

I have no idea, Jupiter, but I'm sure someone will tell us. I also find Netscape 9 loads quicker than Firefox, but they could both do with a turbo boost in that area.

Gary · Oct 31, 2007, 10:03:13

The only bad thing I can find is that Netscape's security usually takes longer to update to the latest FF security changes, so when 2.0.0.9 comes out Netscape will not update at the same time. Did try it a while ago but if I was going to have a third Browser I would want it to be Opera for shear safety and to avoid the possibility of similar security issues with FF and Netscape.

Gary · Nov 02, 2007, 00:51:39

As posted in software updates Firefox 2.0.0.9 is now released

hopefully it won't need Chitty Chitty Bang Bang for assistance now

DAB Badboy · Nov 02, 2007, 12:10:55

Quote from: Killhippie on Oct 31, 2007, 10:03:13
The only bad thing I can find is that Netscape's security usually takes longer to update to the latest FF security changes,

Really? I guess I must have a really vivid imagination then.

Could have sworn I was using 9.0.0.2 ...

Simon · Nov 02, 2007, 21:47:11

Yes, it updated today - twice, in fact! On 9.0.0.3 now.

Gary · Nov 02, 2007, 23:05:22

Quote from: DAB Badboy on Nov 02, 2007, 12:10:55
Really? I guess I must have a really vivid imagination then.

Could have sworn I was using 9.0.0.2 ...

The statement was based on an article I read, and that was what was suggested in it, I was not casting any personal views or aspersions on the browsers ability to update, since the article was wrong that's fair enough, I have learnt something new about Netscape myself. I do not see the need for sarcasm in response to posts though.

jupiter · Nov 03, 2007, 08:52:41

Quote from: Si6776 on Nov 02, 2007, 21:47:11
Yes, it updated today - twice, in fact! On 9.0.0.3 now.

After you posted this I checked the Help tab and 9.0.0.3 is downloading in the background - indeed two in one day. Probably means someone screwed something up in 9.0.0.2

But I'm getting on well with Netscape and slipping into using it all the time.

Simon · Nov 03, 2007, 11:45:30

There's a mail client in the pipeline too, Netscape Mercury, which will be based on Thunderbird. Sounds interesting.

jupiter · Nov 03, 2007, 12:03:13

Quote from: Si6776 on Nov 03, 2007, 11:45:30
There's a mail client in the pipeline too, Netscape Mercury, which will be based on Thunderbird. Sounds interesting.

Yes that is interesting. I get on well with Thunderbird but sometimes it seems to be very slow to load (and I do compact folders).