Is mozilla really a good/the best browser?

Please post any bugs you have found
Message
Author
GuestToo
Puppy Master
Posts: 4083
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 18:11

#16 Post by GuestToo »

Firefox 1.5 looks like this on my machine:

http://i1.tinypic.com/ru1u6h.png

Leon
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed 22 Jun 2005, 21:33

#17 Post by Leon »

lostdog wrote:Some suggested the same post in a diferent thread. I followed the instructions to the letter, and when I restarted firefox, there was no change. The tool bar, menu and url bar all still had the tiny fonts.
This is the path to Firefox user configuration file on my computer:

root/.mozilla/firefox/zezfkl57.default/chrome/userChrome.ss

'zezfkl57.default' directory could have a different name.

Could you post here the path to your userChrome.ss file and its contents?

User avatar
lior2b
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat 04 Feb 2006, 12:15
Location: The Holy Land
Contact:

#18 Post by lior2b »

My take on why Firerfox should be the default browser.

I came across this:
[quote]Paul, as a non-mainline distributer who needed to chose between Epiphany and Firefox and has chosen Firefox, I feel obliged to answer why we did so.

The only really important reason was marketing. There is already a huge marketing force behind Firefox everywhere in the world (most of it free evangelism by journalists), it being the main rival of the MS/IE monopoly. With shipping Firefox (and mentioning it in our marketing material), we are building on that marketing wave. So many people have heard about Firefox these days that we will alienate the want-to-be-different users if we don
[color=#4682B4]Lior Tubi[/color]

lostdog
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed 05 Oct 2005, 16:56

#19 Post by lostdog »

This is my user chrome file. The fonts are still tiny, and hard to read.
/*
* Edit this file and copy it as userChrome.css into your
* profile-directory/chrome/
*/

/*
* This file can be used to customize the look of Mozilla's user interface
* You should consider using !important on rules which you want to
* override default settings.
*/

/*
* Do not remove the @namespace line -- it's required for correct functioning
*/
@namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gateke ... s.only.xul"); /* set default namespace to XUL */


/*
* Some possible accessibility enhancements:
*/
/*
* Make all the default font sizes 20 pt:
*
* * {
* font-size: 20pt !important
* }
*/
/*
* Make menu items in particular 20 pt instead of the default size:
*
* menupopup > * {
* font-size: 20pt !important
* }
*/
/*
* Give the Location (URL) Bar a fixed-width font
*
* #urlbar {
* font-family: monospace !important;
* }
*/

/*
* Eliminate the throbber and its annoying movement:
*
* #throbber-box {
* display: none !important;
* }
*/

/*
* For more examples see http://www.mozilla.org/unix/customizing.html
*/
The truth is out there.

Leon
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed 22 Jun 2005, 21:33

#20 Post by Leon »

lostdog wrote:This is my user chrome file. The fonts are still tiny, and hard to read.
Your font settings are inside the comment signs.

You can see the warning in my instructions at:
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=6722
Leon wrote:Warning
The font size settings must be outside of comment signs '/*' and '*/'. Here is a comment example:
/*
This text is comment.
*/
To fix your menu font settings:
- Close Firefox.
- Open your userChrome.css file file with editor. Move the cursor to the end of file and press Enter to start new line.
- Copy the text from the following code section and pase it to the end of your userChrome.css file and press Enter to add one additional blank new line at the end of file. I think that 12pt as font-size value will be enough. If not then you just increase the value. For font-family value Tahoma is good choice also.

Code: Select all

/*
Menu font settings
*/

* {font-size: 12pt !important;}
* {font-family: Arial !important;}

/*
End of userChrome.css
*/

- Save the file and start Firefox.

lostdog
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed 05 Oct 2005, 16:56

#21 Post by lostdog »

Leon, Thanks. Guess I just don't have a good grasp on the comments in linux. Your last post here helped me get the fonts large enough for me to read. Thanks again.

I'm not known as lostdog for nothing ya know :lol:
The truth is out there.

Leon
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed 22 Jun 2005, 21:33

#22 Post by Leon »

lostdog wrote:Guess I just don't have a good grasp on the comments in linux.
Or it could be that my instructions at:
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=6722
was not clear enough.
I updated my instructions and suggested adding menu font settings at the end of userChrome.css file.
lostdog wrote:I'm not known as lostdog for nothing ya know
lostdog's experiences could be very useful for other lostdogs.

I am glad that you solved the problem.

reasonit
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat 25 Mar 2006, 21:39

#23 Post by reasonit »

my support goes to Opera here.
Though I respect whoever wants mozilla to be default, but incase you ppl don't know, a few thinsg about Opera:
1. full featured- plennnnty of features
2. very very Light and fast. just try all 3 browsers on a PIII ubuntu
3. Download manager included resume supprt
4. Irc client
5. email client
6. rss reader.
7. Looks 1000x better
8. smaller than firefox or mozilla.

Seriously just by using Opera instead of mozilla, rss, a seperate irc client you could easily save 5-10mb , i think.

User avatar
peppyy
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005, 23:49
Location: VT USA
Contact:

Speed tests.

#24 Post by peppyy »

I am sure it depends greatly on the actuall connection and the sites you are viewing but I ran a couple tests on the same server at different times of day with 3 browsers.

Strangely enough, Mozilla cameout on the bottom consistantly with Opera only slightly faster and Firefox was a clear winner each time. The tests were run with all 3 browsers open full screen on the same server with cache cleared. This test includes a very large text doccument and a large compressed JPG image. The averages for each browser in 5 tests were within about 10%. these were download only tests with no java.

I have a high speed DSL connection and am currently running 2.0.1 on a 900mhz t22 thinkpad with 512mb ram and a harddrive install.

I have been using Opera for over a week and love it for certain sites but I have decided that there are several issues that they have to work out before I would make it my main browser. My main objection is that it does not play well with yahoo, my primary email and it causes too many repetive tasks that can be automated in firefox. Each of these fine browsers has their place and I am hard pressed to find a replacement for mozilla composer.

For now I remain a Firefox Fan.
Here are my results.
Attachments
speed.jpg
Browser speed tests
(64.3 KiB) Downloaded 836 times
Puppy Linux...
It just works!

User avatar
rarsa
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 20:30
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

#25 Post by rarsa »

Great stats. Although there is another measure that it's more difficult to get but sometimes more important.

Perceived speed: When does the page gives enough detail for the user to start working with it.
[url]http://rarsa.blogspot.com[/url] Covering my eclectic thoughts
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to

User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#26 Post by Lobster »

:) Very good point Rarsa

Opera may (according to some test singers) be the fastest but having to work it out (it used to be simpler) slows it.
Flock (in beta) is an effort to work out but has integrated blog tools and Flickr image tools
Firefox is simplest (of the major browsers) nothing to learn
HV3 - not much to go wrong - so simple (still in development)
Seamonkey - easy enough when you are used to it (like anything)
. . . also composer, email and address book is fast

People prefer Firefox (or GNU IceWeasel) therefore it is fast enough.

A second here or there is geek speak. Most people put up with IE - which I hear is improving. I tried it recently on a Vista beta - did not feel simple, so it was slow to use. Usability was poor.

On my 1Gig Keydrive (really cheap now guys), I have Firefox portable app. On a Windows computer I can open a secure Firefox with my bookmarks. That is sweet and feels fast.
http://portableapps.com/

My most strange experience was coming to this forum from a Puppy command line browser (sorry forget name) I got here and posted. Never again! It was not slow - just the page display output was so weird . . .

"Perceivied speed" - too right.

Right now using Seamonkey
Puppy Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

User avatar
peppyy
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005, 23:49
Location: VT USA
Contact:

#27 Post by peppyy »

I am sure that these browsers all operate differently on a dialup connection. I have no modem at the moment in this machine totest with although I do also have dialup access. I may be able to do some testing on another machine sometime in the future (When I am snowed in) :) At the kmoment I am looking to build in the best possible wireless I can and an external antenna jack for long range, maybe a 200mw prism minipci.

I first switched to firefox in win98 on a dialup connection because it was about 30% faster in that situation. I have been a fan ever since. I really wish that they would come up with firefox composer and then I would have a favorite web utility but for now I don't mind having several.
Puppy Linux...
It just works!

vern72023
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon 26 Dec 2005, 05:15
Location: Jacksonville Fl

Perceived Speed

#28 Post by vern72023 »

I wondered what it would be like to compare loading puppylinux.org with images and without so i tried both and surprisingly got the following result
with images 9sec
w/out 16secs
with 18secs
w/out 9secs
with 10secs
with 16secs
with 7secs
with 15secs

all within the space of 10minutes
The problem with tests is the second by second changes in the largest single variable - network traffic - so establishing real baseline is not possible without having at least 2 or more seperate machines runnning at regularly timed intervals over at least a 72hours

The main delimiter as I see it given Puppy's stated taget is the size of the programs that are contained within the pup file

and on that basis I think SeaMonkey at 16MB for Browser/Mail/Composer combine has the samllest effective footprint.

Sure Firefox or Opera are smaller as browsers but add in the other functionality and added libs required and they are nowhere near the size, or the bang for the buck

George
george

User avatar
Nathan F
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 14:45
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)
Contact:

#29 Post by Nathan F »

Even after adding QT Opera still comes in smaller than Seamonkey and only leaves out the html editor. I edit html using Bluefish so that doesn't bother me. One smaller issue is that Gasim depends on Mozilla ssl libs to work with MSN. Again, I don't use MSN so it doesn't bother me. Now since there are other programs I use that depend on having QT installed (Scribus) it becomes an even bigger bargain. So if I had to choose only one browser, based on size to utility, it would definately be Opera.

My main complaint, and I'm not alone here, is that Opera is not open source. I've been sitting the fence on dropping it out of Grafpup for that reason. There are some unresolved issues that may very well have been fixed by now if the code were released. So in the future you may see me using Gnuzilla.

Another plus for Seamonkey and Mozilla is the ability to use different profiles, so on a single user system different people could have their own email, bookmarks, extensions, etc. I used this feature for a while so each family member could have things separate, before getting a true multi-user environment up and running in Grafpup.

One thing I would like to see Puppy incorporate in the future is a text only browser for the console environment. Elinks and Links are both stable and full featured, and Netrik is looking interesting if development gets a bit further along. It's just very handy to look things up quickly without having to start up the big slow graphical browser or deal with all kinds of garbage content on the net like Flash, audio, and huge background images. I get a lot more work done when I can get in and out quickly with just the text I wen looking for.

Nathan
Bring on the locusts ...

vern72023
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon 26 Dec 2005, 05:15
Location: Jacksonville Fl

#30 Post by vern72023 »

I would have too second that Nathan
-- only trouble is that a lot of users would not recognise a browser as a vrowser if it was text only :-)

ah the joys of old age and memories of 2400 modems

George
george

Post Reply