Gemal's Psyched Blog - Comments on Why UW choose Mozilla

By jdk

Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:24:45 +0100

It's 2003 now and Netscape has all those features. Excpet no more future Netscape

By Henrik Gemal

Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:31:35 +0100

Mozilla was always *way* ahead of Netscape. All the cool features was in Mozilla, not in Netscape!

It's a shame that Netscape is dead, but it was never as good as browser as Mozilla. Mozilla was nice and clean. Netscape was bloated!

Mozilla is the future. Now we just gotta convince all the IE users of that....

By jdk

Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:01:31 +0100

>>It's a shame that Netscape is dead, but it was never as good as browser as Mozilla. Mozilla was nice and clean. Netscape was bloated!

You must be referring Mozilla Firebird as Mozilla and not the awful bloated Seamonkey

>>Mozilla is the future. Now we just gotta convince all the IE users of that....

I like Mozilla Firebird but why would they want something that is slower at most pages, sometimes rejected from sites(You must have IE to enter) and they have Avant browser

That makes me look like I hate Firebird but Avant is Seamonkey and worse

By Henrik Gemal

Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:04:52 +0100

Netscape has weird bookmarks, ICQ, AIM and Netscape Webmail included in it. And other things.

Mozilla Firebird slower than IE??? Mozilla Firebird is mush faster!

By jdk

Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:29:00 +0100

It's faster on standards sites, but slower on popular sites like cnn.com, very slow javascript(popups) though I don't need popups. DHTML is bad. Startup time is not IE quick(though IE gets system advantage, K-meleon is faster)

But middle-click, tabs, no loaded popups, is what makes firebird fast, not single page benchmark fast. Middle click is really handy