because the web has changed. try to run an old firefox (or phoenix) again. really. try it. it won't feel fast. firefox got much faster in the meantime.
Phoenix was a really stripped down browser compared to other browsers of the day and you couldn't install lots of interesting extensions from day one. Firefox is still pretty barebones but so are other browsers now too, and most people install a ton of extensions that make it feel less snappy to boot.
I was a big fan of Phoenix. What bothers me about modern Firefox is forced updates combined with surprise browser resets that break plug-ins and delete settings data. A few more of these and I'll finally have to switch 100% to Chromium (except for site testing.)
Chrome happened. When something even better comes along, you might not be as satisfied with the old solution, especially if it's just trying to play catch-up over the next few years.
"Initial release November 9, 2004; 7 years ago" [1]
Maybe they're referring to the 1.0 release? I do remember using Firefox way earlier than that, it must have been 2000 or 2001. I guess those were 0.x releases. Wikipedia doesn't seem to say anything about that.
A while back I asked about this for another piece of software I work on, and was told that in general, Wikipedia preferred to use the date of the 1.0 release. Though looking at some other articles, it seems this is inconsistently applied at best.
10 years ago the browser market was very different. ie dominant and many sites (banking in particular) "ie only". Mac had a version of ie and linux as a web surfing platform was wanting.
Firefox has been a good thing.
for those using firefox, the browser has more information.
>You said this is a lean, lightweight browser, but it's 8MB! I laugh at your silly lies!
>Take it easy, sport. Phoenix has many files that override those in Mozilla, but it also has a new set of files. These files render a ton of files in Mozilla unnecessary, but we haven't yet stopped packaging the old files. It also still contains the modern theme and all the composer UI. In short, we haven't done any work yet to minimize the size, but we expect to be able to hit 6MB with a little work.
Firefox is currently 17MB. It's pretty amazing that that size includes (off tge top of my head): JavaScript interpreter/compiler, HTML4 & 5 parser, XML parser, CSS parser, graphics engine, layout engine, WebGL, lots of typographical features, plugin API, extension API, DOM, BOM, developer tools.
It's much less impressive when you consider that Opera offers basically all of that, plus a built-in email client, and built-in BitTorrent support, and a built-in IRC client, and built-in ad blocking, among other features. And the largest Windows installer of the current 12.02 version is merely about 10.5 MB, too.
I think you missed the point. What is impressive is that Opera offers much more functionality than Firefox, yet its installer is nearly half as large. Whether or not the additional functionality offered by Opera is useful is irrelevant to this discussion.
"This newer strategy...with fewer releases but more features and changes manifesting in each one...has held through to subsequent Firefox releases to date."
Well, Chrome cooked their goose with a totally different methodology. A little agility is never a bad thing when you're being out-competed by the same company who pays most of your bills.
I started using Phoenix at v0.3 and remember just how "new" it felt. At the time I was still running Windows (maybe even 98?) and was experimenting with Linux, but hated the netscape/mozilla options. Phoenix was fast, had tabs, a popup blocker, and no ads (unlike Opera). I was a proud user then, and I think they've done remarkably well given the massive competition from three commercial software giants - I'm still a happy user today. Well done Mozilla.
I remember installing it for the first time and it felt just right. The other browsers at the time (Mozilla Suite, Netscape 6.x, IE) just felt so bulky.
You could tell right away that this software was going to go places.
It's interesting that 0.3 had the ability to right click on an image to block the server it comes from... I'm assuming this is a preference or an extension nowadays!
After making the jump from Netscape 4.5/4.72 to Mozilla 1.2, I stayed on Mozilla until Firefox 1.0 came out. I've been using Firefox ever since. I've got Chrome installed, mostly to check that websites work properly in it, but it never pulled me away from Firefox.
I really miss Phoenix. The tiny size, almost non-existent feature set, incredible snappy speed, and still wide compatibility with most (if not all) websites of the day.
Then there's Firefox. It's taken years to get to a point where you aren't swapping from three page loads. It has hardware graphics rendering and built-in video codecs. An entire development environment. And "helpful" features that try to guess what you're thinking and end up using more bandwidth, i/o and cpu than is necessary.
I know, i'm a luddite, i'm old-fashioned, i'm hindering progress. But get off my lawn! I just want a single tool that does something well. What's wrong with just releasing plugins for the features that aren't strictly text and image web content?
48 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadWhat happened? I still use it, but I definitely don't feel the same about it.
A comparison via screenshots shows Firefox hasn't departed far from the spirit of Phoenix by default though. Phoenix 0.1: http://no.gd/p/phoenix-01-20120924-002927.jpg Firefox 16: http://no.gd/p/ff16-20120924-002834.jpg
People stopped using text and images, and moved onto vast quantities of active content. Look at how much data is shifted for your couple of sentences.
(Not that it seems to have done much for Opera, but Mozilla is in a better position to capitalise.)
"Initial release November 9, 2004; 7 years ago" [1]
Maybe they're referring to the 1.0 release? I do remember using Firefox way earlier than that, it must have been 2000 or 2001. I guess those were 0.x releases. Wikipedia doesn't seem to say anything about that.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox
EDIT: It was called Firebird back then, too
Firefox has been a good thing.
for those using firefox, the browser has more information.
go to the address about:mozilla
Maybe "information" is a stretch, but its fun.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_UNIX)
>Take it easy, sport. Phoenix has many files that override those in Mozilla, but it also has a new set of files. These files render a ton of files in Mozilla unnecessary, but we haven't yet stopped packaging the old files. It also still contains the modern theme and all the composer UI. In short, we haven't done any work yet to minimize the size, but we expect to be able to hit 6MB with a little work.
Things have changed quite a bit.
The vast majority of the world will never need to use any of that.
Built-in ad blocking is about the only useful thing you listed, and Ad-Block and ABP are widely used.
http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.andrewturnbull.net/moz...
http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.andrewturnbull.net/moz...
http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.andrewturnbull.net/moz...
http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.andrewturnbull.net/moz...
History of Mozilla mascot:
http://www.davetitus.com/mozilla/
Archive of old browsers and original Mcom.com site:
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2008/03/happy-run-some-old-web-brows...
http://home.mcom.com/archives/
http://home.mcom.com
"This newer strategy...with fewer releases but more features and changes manifesting in each one...has held through to subsequent Firefox releases to date."
History sure changes fast.
You could tell right away that this software was going to go places.
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/0.3.html#new
My guess the same instructions should work on ubuntu 12.04 lts
Then there's Firefox. It's taken years to get to a point where you aren't swapping from three page loads. It has hardware graphics rendering and built-in video codecs. An entire development environment. And "helpful" features that try to guess what you're thinking and end up using more bandwidth, i/o and cpu than is necessary.
I know, i'm a luddite, i'm old-fashioned, i'm hindering progress. But get off my lawn! I just want a single tool that does something well. What's wrong with just releasing plugins for the features that aren't strictly text and image web content?