Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 25th Sep 2002 02:20 UTC, submitted by James McLaren
Opera Software Opera Software has posted some preview versions for Opera 6.1, both for FreeBSD (natively) and Linux. In other browser news, Phoenix 0.1 was released, which is meant to be a lighter version of Mozilla. Update: Opera 6 for Mac is now also available.
Order by: Score:
Phoenix Rocks!
by BradC on Wed 25th Sep 2002 06:22 UTC

i posted several screenshots of it on my site:

http://www.phatvibez.net/reviews.php?ID=phoenix

RE: Phoenix (doesn't) Rock!
by Eugenia on Wed 25th Sep 2002 06:27 UTC

I tried Phoenix this morning. I still have the exact same issue with all the widgets as I described here: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1620
And it takes up to 10 seconds to load... Not so good.

Finally Opera for FreeBSD! Woo-hoo!!!
by Jay S. Lazlo on Wed 25th Sep 2002 07:50 UTC

I for one am glad that Opera finally made a version of Opera for FreeBSD. Whenever i tried to install the Linux version to FreeBSD, i always got an error message saying that it was aborting the installation because the OS was not Linux (Linux compatibility had been enabled).

Bookmark Bugs
by John Blink on Wed 25th Sep 2002 08:46 UTC

Does anyone get bugs with the bookmarks in the windows version. (I haven't tried the linux version yet).

Things like not being able to delete Personal Toolbar, not being able to import bookmarks(auto import of IE favourite works on initial load).

Also I tried a nightly build last weekend and it had all the features they seem to have removed in this release.

Also should Phoenix just be a Mozilla browser with some features taken out.

Also Beonex is a better browser than Phoenix, it is already where Phoenix will be in a couple releases.

RE: Phoenix (doesn't) Rock!
by Corey on Wed 25th Sep 2002 09:09 UTC

"And it takes up to 10 seconds to load... Not so good."

What are you running it on? It only takes 4 seconds on my box running Windows XP, 600mhz Celeron, 256mb of ram.

AND 6 beta 1 for Mac
by egilDOTnet on Wed 25th Sep 2002 09:15 UTC

As GeekInfo.net has been reporting for some time now ( http://geekinfo.net/article.php?story=2002091523123194 ), Opera 6 beta 1 for Mac is also available, now in public beta. Check out http://www.opera.com/mac for more.

Opera 6.1 on Linux uses Qt 3
by Q3Xr2 on Wed 25th Sep 2002 09:31 UTC

I'm glad to see that Opera 6.1 uses Qt 3, but since I use Qt 3.0.5 and there is an incompatibilty with the styles of older versions of Qt 3, I only can choose an ugly motif style. From the preferences I can choose other styles but they don't work. This small problem is due that Opera was'nt compiled with Qt 3.0.5. On the contrary I can enjoy a good antialiased text.

Phoenix
by Beginner on Wed 25th Sep 2002 10:38 UTC

Has anybody tried Phoenix?

( I havent never succeeded to compile mozilla so I
can't try it.)

How fast is it? How does it compare to Opera on Linux?

RE: Finally Opera for FreeBSD! Woo-hoo!!!
by \\K on Wed 25th Sep 2002 10:53 UTC

I tried it a while ago for some web site testing, and it worked *very* well under binary emulation.

I was quite impressed with it, of course, I still prefer Mozilla/Phoenix/Galeon, but it worked great.

Have you tried to install it from the ports tree? Or you downloaded it by yourself? I think the port takes care of some problems for you, for me it was as easy as any other port:
# cd /usr/ports/www/linux-opera/; make install && opera

BTW: for all those Phoenix bashers out there, Phoenix is still quite alpha, at version 0.1 it already rocks in many ways, although for me it doesn't yet justify the switch from Moz. Give it time please, Phoenix is the future of Mozilla, it has a modular approach instead of the monolithic app that Mozilla is, it's just that right now is missing all the optional modules ;)

I'm quite sure that in a few months everybody will be using it instead of the main Mozilla builds. Once all the missing mozilla functionality is available as modules + all mozdev.org stuff + a good module manager, it's going to rock.

\k


P.S.: Eugenia: are you running Phoenix on a BeBox or some other kind of prehistoric hardware? It works really fast here, and my computer is not exactly anything near a p4 2Ghz... even mozilla is quite fast this days, I have not even bothered to upgrade to 1.2a and stick to whatever the mozilla-devel port has(1.1+plus a few fixes), oh, well, maybe is because I'm running a superior OS(FreeBSD) ;P

Re: Eugenia
by ealm on Wed 25th Sep 2002 12:23 UTC

I kind of get a feeling that you have decided anything mozilla sucks.
10 s is what it takes for ME too start Phoenix (PII 300, Win2k).

You say that your XP is the best for you, but regarding the problems you seem to have with non-MS apps maybe it's time to switch? Or maybe you "only need" MS apps these days...

RE: Phoenix (doesn't) Rock!
by Anonymous on Wed 25th Sep 2002 12:39 UTC

At this risk of being modded down...
Eugenia, why do you complain so much? If you read the faq on their site, they said it wasn't finished, the downloaded is expected to be smaller, and speed, ofcourse, should improve. You're just like all those people you complain about. "Those people" who are so quick to bash MS. I don't know what kind of system you're running over there, but it seems to be only compad. with microsoft I.E.?

Phoenix does NOT rock yet
by Mr. Cancelled on Wed 25th Sep 2002 12:57 UTC

Ok... Without entering the whole "Maybe it's time to switch" arguement, Phoenix, unfortunately, is NOT a faster browser currently.

In fact it takes longer to load for me than Mozilla, which is entirely the reason I was looking for a lightweight version of said browser.

If it matters (and it doesn't), no I'm not using it on a POS system. It's got 1/2 gig of memory, WinXP, and a 1.2Ghz CPU to play with, and it's still noticably slower both with loads and render speeds.

Hopefully this will improve (it's gotta!), but for now Phoenix is a neat idea, but not a useable browser.

The only caveat to this is that you don't have to install Phoenix to run it, simply unzip the archive, and run the executable.

Realistically, other than load time, I don't see the need for Phoenix. Mozilla renders pages for me as fast as IE does (or if it's slower, it's not noticably so). My only grip is the load time (and no, I don't want Mozilla constantly in memory so that it loads 1.3 seconds quicker the next time, so this is all referring to cold starts).

The ONLY feature I want Mozilla to add, and it's one they're not likely to add, is the ability to support IE layering. I've got some custom apps that only run in IE right now, and while Mozilla's the first non-IE browser to display these pages correctly, it still doesn't allow one to interact with embedded layers as IE does.

Sigh...

QT Troubles? Use Opera's Static Build
by Jud on Wed 25th Sep 2002 13:21 UTC

Howdy, Q3Xr2. I believe the note regarding the QT incompatibility (between QT 3.0.5, the latest FreeBSD ports version, and QT 3.0.x<5, which is what Opera was built with) only applies regarding the *dynamic* version, where Opera uses your system's QT. The static version, which has all the necessary QT stuff built in, is faster anyway. So use the static version and be happy. (I have been, and all styles, not just the "ugly Motif" one, work fine.)

Re: Has anybody tried Phoenix?
by Bryan on Wed 25th Sep 2002 13:36 UTC

> ( I havent never succeeded to compile mozilla so I
> can't try it.)

You don't have to compile it, they have binaries for linux and windows on the site. I couldn't even find source for it.

> How fast is it? How does it compare to Opera on Linux?

On *my* box it seems to run as fast, if not faster than mozilla. I'm running it in linux with an 950mhz athlon and 256mb ram, on top of gnome2 none-the-less.

Phoenix...what are you talking about?
by BradC on Wed 25th Sep 2002 13:56 UTC

the system i am currently running it on...
AMD 1Ghz
512 MB ram
Linux (Mandrake 9 rc2)

it loads and displays extremely fast for me so I don't know what you guys are talking about. Are there problems with some stuff...probably it IS a 0.1 release

yes you read that correctly this is no where near a 1.0 release it is VERY early in development!

and why compile it? (unless you optimize for you hardware or something for speed) there are binaries available for both mozilla and phoenix.

Phoenix
by rajan r on Wed 25th Sep 2002 14:12 UTC

I kind of get a feeling that you have decided anything mozilla sucks.
10 s is what it takes for ME too start Phoenix (PII 300, Win2k).


If that's the case, she wouldn't express interest in K-Meleon, would she?

Besides, for me, Phoenix is as fast as Mozilla. But I much prefer the bookmark manager, which is the best I have seen. It just needs A LOT of refinement, but what could one expect from an alpha app? :-)

Anyway, on Opera for Mac, finally, Mac seems like a viable choice for my next computer (unlike before where it isn't in the running).

Besides
by rajan r on Wed 25th Sep 2002 14:16 UTC

Again, on Opera for mac
Isn't it unfair that the Linux verson don't blend it automatically with KDE, and the Windows version likewise, while the Mac version just blends in? What makes Opera think that only Mac users like something consistent with their platform? Hrmmmm....

Yay, Opera for FreeBSD!
by Bascule on Wed 25th Sep 2002 14:17 UTC

Well, I've been using Opera under FreeBSD For about the past two years (through compat) and it's worked great. However, it's always nice to see a native version. It's also nice when commercial companies acknowledging the existance of FreeBSD ;)

Opera still needs (the following two OmniWeb features):
* Popup killer with "Allow popups only in response to a link being clicked"
* Adblock

As is, Opera still has the best interface of any browser around.

Re: rajan r
by Bascule on Wed 25th Sep 2002 14:19 UTC

Isn't it unfair that the Linux verson don't blend it automatically with KDE

Welcome to X. None of your applications will ever have a cohesive feel.

But on the contrary, Opera blends in perfectly with CDE. It's just CDE is ugly as sin.

and the Windows version likewise

Umm, I don't see anything discontiguous about the windows version. Perhaps you need to turn off the skin.

while the Mac version just blends in?

Why are you using Opera over OmniWeb?

Phoenix == Good
by vivid on Wed 25th Sep 2002 14:21 UTC

I've been very impressed with Phoenix so far... its UI is definitely more responsive for me thatn Mozilla's and I really like that it uses native UI widgets. I'm looking forward to what happens as they continue to improve it... for a 0.1 release it's pretty dang good. :-)

Phoenix is fast for me!
by Christopher Kemp on Wed 25th Sep 2002 14:21 UTC

Running it under Mandrake Linux 8.1, and I don't see any slowness at all - 6 seconds from launch to Google. I also don't see the menu artifacts at all - they redraw fine.

I'm on a older PIII, with about 256 MB RAM.

Re: Bascule
by egilDOTnet on Wed 25th Sep 2002 14:31 UTC

> Why are you using Opera over OmniWeb? I for one use both, but I prefer Opera for several reasons: - Its much more standards compliant - Its lightning fast - Its got full screen mode - Its cross platform (I can use it at work with the same bookmarks file) - Its got tabs - The bookmarks are searchable - Its got instant zoom I think I'll stop there. For now.. ;) Omniweb have lots of good features, first and foremost its rendering and regexp tools, and its not a bad browser. But it laks much in speed and standard compliance.

Bascule...
by rajan r on Wed 25th Sep 2002 14:38 UTC

Bascule: Welcome to X. None of your applications will ever have a cohesive feel.

As a QT app, it should at least try to blend in with the most used desktop on Linux and FreeBSD. Plus, like I mentioned, it is an QT app.

Bascule: Umm, I don't see anything discontiguous about the windows version. Perhaps you need to turn off the skin.

On Windows XP, it looks completely out of place. On Windows 2000, it blends in more, but still looks out of place, even with the Classic theme (the beveled objects are mcuh smoother on native apps than on Opera).

Bascule: Why are you using Opera over OmniWeb?

Because I love Opera :-) My god, you don't know that? How long have you been coming here?

Yet Another Test....
by Brad C. on Wed 25th Sep 2002 14:48 UTC

I just downloaded the nightly(labeled 9/24) binary to my laptop (pIII 500mhz, 256 ram, mdk 8.2)

and it again loads up quickly for me, i have no problems with the widgets or anything. I wonder if there is just a problem with the windows version currently becasue i haven't been able to reporduce any of the slowness on two of my machines.

replies
by Eugenia on Wed 25th Sep 2002 15:06 UTC

>>"And it takes up to 10 seconds to load... Not so good."

>What are you running it on? It only takes 4 seconds on my box running Windows XP, 600mhz Celeron, 256mb of ram.


I run it on a *dual* Celeron 533 with 256 MB of SDRAM.

>I kind of get a feeling that you have decided anything mozilla sucks.

It is only your feeling. I am very open minded about Mozilla. It just doesn't work well here. What do you want me to say, that it does, just because it is an "alternative"? You knock on the wrong door pal.

> You say that your XP is the best for you, but regarding the problems you seem to have with non-MS apps maybe it's time to switch? Or maybe you "only need" MS apps these days...

You got to be kidding me that I should switch an OS just because some developers don't know how to write and profile code. And I don't have problems with other apps generally. Only with Mozilla's performance. If I switch something this would be a browser, not an OS.

I gave a try to Phoenix 0.1, and I really am liking what I see so far. I don't think its feature site is as complete as Mozilla, but looking at how things are going, chances that Phoenix will become my primary browser one day are very high.

My impression is that Phoenix does load faster. Not only that, but much faster. Maybe Eugenia's problems have to do with her hypothesis that she seems to have problems no one else experiences ;) . Phoenix does take 10 seconds to launch, but in the old P166 with 96MB of RAM machine. In my regular Duron 900 laptop it appears almost instantly.

Definitively not bad for a 0.1, maybe because everything except the XUL frontend is already done ;) This is a good demonstration that even XUL can be fast when treated properly.

Quit attacking Eugenia
by null_pointer_us on Wed 25th Sep 2002 15:13 UTC

> I kind of get a feeling that you have decided anything mozilla sucks.

I kind of get a feeling that people who try to rip Eugenia have no clue what she is talking about. I do not understand how her arguments could be any clearer; if she says Phoenix does not rock, she means that it does not rock.

What is so hard about reading what a person says and thinking about it rationally before posting?

> You're just like all those people you complain about.

No, she was just making a good point. Pheonix does not rock. It may rock in the future, but it does not rock now. Misleading statements must be corrected regardless of how the correction makes us feel.

Load time
by Jason Stiles on Wed 25th Sep 2002 15:20 UTC

Its ridiculous to compare the time it takes any application to launch to Internet Explorer. IE is always open, it loads when you boot. Its the little advantage you get when you make the OS too. If you want to compare launch times for Mozilla/Mozilla based apps to IE the only fair comparison is to enable quick launch so both programs stay resident.

Its a fact of life big apps take time to launch, you can hide it in boot time, or you can just deal with. RAM is cheap why not just leave it running...

As for the now infamous widget issues.... I just don't see it on 600 Mhz PIII thinkpad...

RE: Load time
by Eugenia on Wed 25th Sep 2002 15:32 UTC

> Its ridiculous to compare the time it takes any application to launch to Internet Explorer

Opera and Netscape 4.8 and even Mozilla itself does NOT take 10 seconds to load here.

> As for the now infamous widget issues.... I just don't see it on 600 Mhz PIII thinkpad...

Well, I do. And a lot of other people have seen it and filed bug reports and screenshots on bugzilla. And it is still not fixed.

Omniweb - A prettier NS4.x
by NoBeForMe on Wed 25th Sep 2002 15:56 UTC

The reason people don't use Omniweb is the same reason they stopped using NS 4.x, its behaviour is only loosely connected to what was written in the HTML, JS and CSS on the page. So Google and NTK will work, but many blogs and sites like ALA look like an explosion at a paint factory.

Every significant OS vendor now includes a browser that implements W3C standards to at least a basic level. Switching from that to some browser that can't handle CSS1 just because it fits better with your window decor puts you in the same mental category as those people who buy "beautiful" HiFi systems that sound like a cheap Walkman clone.

The same thing is starting to hurt Opera as well. In their case static pages are looking pretty good these days (even fixed their PNG bugs unlike Microsoft) but W3C dynamic HTML aka DOM mangling just doesn't work worth a damn.

Eugenia's widget draw problem
by NoBeForMe on Wed 25th Sep 2002 16:03 UTC

BTW I've seen the same issue AND worse on Internet Explorer. I was surprised because I thought the native widgets couldn't do that, but they do. It's probably an event ordering problem. This was in IE 5.x and may be fixed in the latest version, but I saw it, so I now regard Eugenia's Mozilla bug as just another "Your mother / No, YOUR mother" argument. It should be fixed, but there are lots of more important things.

(No I don't have screenshots, I noticed and was angry because I was trying to demo something to people. Otherwise I wouldn't have had cause to use Internet Explorer in the first place.)

Great Start
by James M on Wed 25th Sep 2002 16:03 UTC

Ok, granted Phoenix is still an 8mb download and takes about 10 seconds to start for me...

but other than that I find this release incredibly polished for a 0.1 release. You people seem to be missing that point... they JUST released it Monday night. They intend to do much more tweaking. They have stated that speed is their primary goal.

I'm using it right now and I find it great. Like I said earlier, start-up is a little slow, but once it's started, page rendering is almost instaneous. Not many other browsers can claim to be this usable and polished after only a 0.1 release.

I will definitely keep using it... and I hope someone ports it BeOS *hint hint* ;)

Re: NoBeForMe
by Bascule on Wed 25th Sep 2002 16:35 UTC

BTW I've seen the same issue AND worse on Internet Explorer. I was surprised because I thought the native widgets couldn't do that, but they do.

I see this sort of thing all the time in XP in general (with the start menu, no less!) I don't have screen shots of the start menu itself, but you can peruse http://fails.org/xp for some screen shots I've taken of XP's failure to render things properly in general.

These screen shots illustrate similar problems on two different machines. Some are from a 2GHz Pentium 4 system (labeled designed for Windows XP, ironically enough) with a GeForce4 MX and the Nvidia 30.82 WHQL certified drivers. The other is a Pentium III 800MHz system with an ATI Rage 128.

Opera & DOM
by Jud on Wed 25th Sep 2002 17:45 UTC

NoBeForMe said: "The same thing is starting to hurt Opera as well. In their case static pages are looking pretty good these days (even fixed their PNG bugs unlike Microsoft) but W3C dynamic HTML aka DOM mangling just doesn't work worth a damn."

Yep, Opera Software admits that the 6.x versions of Opera don't support much of DOM. DOM support is, however, one of the primary stated goals of O7, coming RSN to a computer near you.

Of course, "Just how soon is Real Soon Now?" is a whole 'nother question. ;)

...
by null_pointer_us on Wed 25th Sep 2002 18:10 UTC

> Its ridiculous to compare the time it takes any application to launch to
> Internet Explorer. IE is always open, it loads when you boot...

But no one compared Mozilla's load times to IE. Stop trolling.

> but other than that I find this release incredibly polished for a 0.1 release.
> You people seem to be missing that point... they JUST released it Monday
> night. They intend to do much more tweaking. They have stated that speed
> is their primary goal.

In the future. But not now. Now repeat after me:

Eugenia did not say that Phoenix would fail.
Eugenia did not say that Phoenix is a dumb project.
Eugenia did not say that Phoenix would never "rock."

> I see this sort of thing all the time in XP in general (with the start menu, no
> less!) I don't have screen shots of the start menu itself, but you can peruse
> http://fails.org/xp for some screen shots I've taken of XP's failure to render
> things properly in general.

Even though you said that you had tested it on two different machines, I still believe that it is a graphics problem of some kind instead of a problem with the UI. I do not encounter those problems on my Athlon XP machine with either an ATI Radeon 7200 or a Matrox G550.

The only problem that I have with the Radeon is that the My Computer icon refuses to restore itself as a high color icon after launching a fullscreen game. The only solution to this problem (rebooting won't work!) is to reload the game and exit. Wierd. But it does not happen with the G550.

The problems discussed in this thread with Windows itself are most likely due to the complexity of the Windows GDI that video card manufacturers implement.

Opera for FreeBSD!!
by Jay S. Lazlo on Wed 25th Sep 2002 19:28 UTC

K,

It's been awhile since i tried installing Opera onto FreeBSD. I recall that i had downloaded it from Opera's website. At the time i asked about it on Usenet and someone said it was the version of FreeBSD i was using. Got the next version and still didn't work. I would load it from Ports, but when i ftp more than a meg or so i lose my Internet connection and have to reboot. I'm on a cablemodem. Been too busy to spend time researching what's causing it. If you have any ideas i would appreciate hearing it.
Thanks,
Jay S. Lazlo

have to disagree with the general trend here..
by hmmmm... on Wed 25th Sep 2002 19:56 UTC

I tried phoenix earlier today... and i have to conclude that.. for me.. its MUCH faster than the "normal" Mozilla..

ive never cared for moz.. but phoenix may just change my mind... when its polished up some more i may give it a shot


Try this:
by Hug0 on Wed 25th Sep 2002 20:15 UTC

Its ridiculous to compare the time it takes any application to launch to Internet Explorer. IE is always open, it loads when you boot

That is not totally true, it's not IE itself that is always open, it's just some .dll IE uses, you can see this by doing the following in windows xp:

1 - rename some .html or .htm file to .hta, that is, change the file extention to .hta
example: change foo.html to foo.hta

2 - double-click the .hta file (foo.hta), you'll be able to see that file, but you didn't actually use IE itself, it also loads even faster

3 - rename the .hta file back to its original extention ;)

RE: load times, rocks
by Christopher Kemp on Wed 25th Sep 2002 20:21 UTC

In the interest of being thorough, I switched over to KDE 3.0, and I am seeing slower drawing & a longer load time. My earlier comment was running Ximian GNOME, which handles Phoenix quite well, so far.

Strange turn that the debate here is taking - what exactly is the criterea for something to "rock" or not to "rock"? :-s

...
by null_pointer_us on Wed 25th Sep 2002 21:02 UTC

> Strange turn that the debate here is taking - what exactly is the criteria
> for something to "rock" or not to "rock" :-s

I am tired of repeating myself. Read the thread.

Re: Bascule and xp shots
by Chris Child on Wed 25th Sep 2002 22:04 UTC

every single shot you posted is the result of an application failure, not a windows failure. Granted, it sucks that IE is making these mistakes, but it is still IE's fault, not windows' (integration arguments aside...).

Notice that in all your screenshots, the title bar is never corrupted. Like a window manager, all windows is responsible for constantly drawing is the titlebar and window frame.

A quick intro to how windows draws, well, windows. GDI draws the "window" (titlebar+border) in a size/design (max min buttons etc) given to it by the app. Then, it tells the app what the window looks like, and asks it to "draw." Unlike OSX, windows has no idea what is in the window. If the application needs a button, it asks windows (actually the common controls apis) to draw a button. When parts of a window are covered then uncovered (as has happened in these screenshots) windows tells the application "please redraw yourself." What is happening in this situation is that the application is busy with something else and hasn't gotten around to redrawing itself yet.

Basically, there are two ways to solve this (and no, neither will solve eugenia's slow menus problem). First, make your application multi-threaded so it can simultaneously do stuff and redraw. IE is terrible about this (often while struggling to load a web page, it won't redraw for minutes). Second, Windows could cache the window's bitmaps. This would require Windows to, whenever a window's contents are updated by an app, to cache them, and just use the cached contents until the app could redraw itself (or just used the cached, and assume the app will redraw if anything changes).

Interestingly enough, Suggestion 2 already exists in Quartz, and should exist in Longhorn (all the 3-d stuff will do this). In fact, XP and 2k already *sort-of* support it through their transparency support. For a window to be made transparent, it first must be made "layered" which essentially means that whatever it covers is cached. Try to cause the same corruption you've caught in your screenshots with a partially transparent window: it won't happen. Of course, transparent windows, especially ones any bigger than winamp, move terribly slowly, which is why layering isn't enabled on all windows (layering takes almost as much work as transparency). but that, of course, is what Longhorn's new GUI stuff aims to fix.

(sorry for the long post :-)

Phoenix
by Jay on Wed 25th Sep 2002 23:22 UTC

I have Phoenix on my 1.7 GHz/1 GB RAM/XP Pro box. I didn't time it, but I was expecting it to open sooner than it did. It does remind me of Chimera, which I use all the time, and is why there is no Mac version of Phoenix. If it improves in the same manner that Chimera has, it will be excellent. But now, there are lots of bugs and all that Mozilla code in there that's dead weight. At any rate, I look forward to upcoming updates.

Phoenix is a Pebble, but Beonex Rocks.
by John Blink on Thu 26th Sep 2002 01:56 UTC

AMD k6-2 450Mhz 384MB RAM.

Phoenix launches under 7 seconds. Yet its bookmark manager in both linux and windows sucks, what is everyone talking about. It is so bugged, it only displays what is already there.

Phoenix will one day develop to be a good browser, but I already mentione Beonex in the first page of these comments. Hasn't anyone tried Beonex for linux or windows? It launches just as fast as Phoenix, and yet it is more ready than Phoenix, also I haven't noticed any bugs.

Re: Phoenix is a Pebble, but Beonex Rocks.
by rajan r on Thu 26th Sep 2002 13:55 UTC

From what I gathered from it, it differs slightly from Mozilla in terms of UI, but adds in speed, stablity and security features. Correct me if I'm wrong....

It is more of an unpoluted Netscape built for end users. Plus, IIRC, it has content blocking, which can be useful for companies and families.

Re: Load Times
by C. Corayer on Thu 26th Sep 2002 17:20 UTC

If it isn't in RAM you have to get it from DISK. Posting specs on your processor and RAM don't mean a damned thing. Sorry, but they really don't matter in that situation which is what people seem to be talking about here.

IE loads fast enough. For the most part I don't really notice load times unless things are REALLY slow. Then again, I only notice the time on a much older system. Trying to get mozilla or anything else to load off a laptop with a drive 3 years old is going to be slow. Doing the same off my desktop machine with all Ultra 160 SCSI hardware does not even register. The laptop takes probably 8-10 seconds, the desktop maybe two or three if that ( off the cuff guestimate ).

Processor and RAM have little to do with it when there's nothing in RAM in the first place. I matters only once it makes it to RAM. In which case even the slowest system probably has decent "load" times once it's been run once and hasn't been replaced in cache.

Corruption of menu bars and other bugs are just that. Bugs. They will get fixed in time if enough, or the right, people can find them. How many of them are the application, and how many might even be driver related, and how many are actually Windows or X11 related?

I've used Opera on BSD. It worked, but I didn't care for the sheer amount of stuff needed to build it from the ports. This was the linux-opera port. Galeon took forever to build and left so many extra things installed that I really didn't spend a lot of time with it. Mozilla was pretty decent, but I still tend to run Konq. When in Windows, I tend to just type in URLs from the explorer window without even using IE. Yes, I know, it's the same thing, but I'm not opening up yet ANOTHER window/program, just what extra needs to be there to make it work.

As long as it works, use what you like. It completely mystifies me when someone says something is available and people drop out of the woodwork saying something else is much better, or this sucks, that rocks. What happened to the responses of "That's excellent. Have you tried program Y as well?"