It's actually a realy good change, Mozilla itself is based on the original old-school Netscape code. And over the time it's been changed, warped, replaced, stomped on etc etc etc. So it works well but with all that history it's hard to get new developers because the time it takes to learn how everything works is daunting.
Actually, they share the VAST majority of the code base. Mozilla was a rewrite of the old-school Netscape code. All the ugliness (layout, rendering, networking) is identical in FireFox. The frontend is different. I've messed around with the code for both frontends, and they're the same to work with - Moz isn't full of ugly hacks or anything like that.[/quote]
I never messed with either one. Just what I heard in a developer interview, I didn't figure it was full of hacks and stuff, but that it was just complex.
From what I understand is that they specificly designed to have the Gecko rendering engine seperate from the front end. Thats how you get things like Galeon or Epiphany and whatnot.
As far as Mozilla vs Firefox, I think the plan is going to be to replace Mozilla. I wouldn't think it would be very hard to get it to look and feel a lot alike.
[/quote]
If you can't make up your mind, use firefox if having something quick and fun is important, use Mozilla if stability and mature features is wanted and initial openning speed isn't a issue (what does a extra 2-3 seconds openning time if you leave your browser open for days?)
Moz loads faster, since FF doesn't have quicklaunch.
[/quote]
Ok. I was a while since I actually used Mozilla and I did notice on my laptop that Mozilla loads pretty quick nowadays. Personally I don't give a damn on loading times, so I guess I didn't notice. The computer spends 1000000x more time waiting for my brain to "load" as I stare drooling at the screen vs it's loading time.
Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete
From what I read, Firefox is slower, more bloated, and can't load some pages right. That's enough reason for me to stay away.
I'll keep my PC up to date and not do anything stupid. It's worked well with IE so far!
The wonderful thing about IE is that you don't HAVE to do anything stupid - it goes ahead and gets hacked for you on "normal" sites. I read that one of the sites that ended up hacking IE users was Kelly Blue Book. If you happened to be researching used cars during that, all your passwords would now belong to russian hackers. It's not like IE is safe as long as you stay away from L33tHax0rD00dsW4r3z sites.
Firefox doesn't load any pages incorrectly - it follows stanards.[/quote]
Bloat doesn't enter into it for IE vs Mozilla. With IE you have 90% of the stupid thing running even before you open up the actual browser since a big hunk of the Explorer shell actually goes into the browser.
You already have most of the browser running before you even open up IE for the first time, the way I figure it. And that's part of the problem with Windows/Outlook/IE security-wise. If you get a whole discovered in IE it's nearly impossible to figure out how far the ramifications for the rest of the system goes.
If there is a flaw in Mozilla then 99% of the time only the browser itself suffers. Even if MS programmers are as good as Mozilla programmers (very likely) the chances of a security flaw in IE being serious is much higher then Mozilla because the inherent design of the browser and how it interacts with the rest of the system. Even if they have had the same amount of serious flaws, it's less likely to be a security concern in Mozilla, not thru any magic or superiour programming, but that's just the way it is.
At least that's they way I look at it. I don't know how right I am or not.
What I do know is that good security policies can save you if your using IE, and bad security policies can sink you if your using Firefox. However good security policies + Firefox is better then good security policies and IE. Using Firefox is good security policy in itself.
However not everybody's goal is to be as absolutely secure as possible. It costs convienience and effort. So maybe good enough is good enough for you its worth the trade off so that you can have 3 second faster load time.
However the render time on IE vs Mozilla for webpages, my experiance is that Mozilla is much faster. But I don't have much experiance in comparision because I've never actually done good benchmarks. IE has obviously faster load times, though.
One notable experiance was when my dad was having trouble with a website. One of those "fantasy football" things with lots of java for real time stats and all that. On a 512Meg, 1.8GHZ P4 machine running WinXP the thing was struggling with it. The page was loading slow and the rest of the system was being affected, scrolled slow and was generally acting very awkward. I went downstairs to a Redhat 8.0 system I set up for them. Old 800mhz celeron, 128megs. Mozilla handled that with no problem at all. Didn't even affect the rest of the machine, and all the java worked and all that happiness.
Could be that it's just because Mozilla is native to Linux, maybe it just isn't as optmizied as in Windows as it is on a Linux machine. Don't know.
Facebook
Twitter