# Mozilla vs Firebird **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 9, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mozilla-vs-firebird/200613 "2003-09-09T21:29:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mozilla-vs-firebird/200613/1 "2003-09-09T21:29:52Z")
I use Mozilla and like it a lot. A lot of people also like Firebird, which is also made by the Mozilla folks. Are there any compelling reasons to switch from Mozilla to Firebird? I guess Firebird is smaller and uses less resources, but if Mozilla runs fine do I gain anything going to Firebird? ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mozilla-vs-firebird/200613/2 "2003-09-09T22:02:13Z")
Personally, I think the Jar of Pickles would win … 😉 Sorry for the smart-ass answer; I really don’t have anything useful to say … ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mozilla-vs-firebird/200613/3 "2003-09-09T23:39:22Z")
I’ve been trying out Firebird for the last few weeks, and I can’t say I’ve noticed much difference to ‘classic’ Mozilla. The menu and toolbars take up less space, but apart from that there don’t seem to be any stand-out new features, and the memory footprint is about the same (on Windows, at least). Also, being pre-release, there are still some minor bugs. Maybe when it goes to official release, which I think will be Mozilla 1.6, they will have managed to get the memory usage down, but right now I wouldn’t particularly recommend it over Mozilla. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mozilla-vs-firebird/200613/4 "2003-09-10T00:11:04Z")
I’ve been using it for a while. At least on my computer, it seems to load up faster than regular Mozilla. I also just prefer the way it feels. The last one is completely subjective. ---
**Author:** ![DreadCthulhu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DreadCthulhu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DreadCthulhu)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mozilla-vs-firebird/200613/5 "2003-09-10T02:17:45Z")
I prefer Firebird; its what I am using right now. It seems a bit faster, and I like the interface more. Also, does Firebird get a 1920’s style “Death Ray” for the battle? ---
**Author:** ![Alereon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@Alereon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alereon)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mozilla-vs-firebird/200613/6 "2003-09-10T12:51:48Z")
Firebird is definitely faster, and the download is half the size. Being on dialup, the latter was a compelling reason to go with it. Optimized compiles for your processor, available at [Mozillazine.org](http://www.mozillazine.org) in the “Firebird Builds Forum,” will be even faster for you. For more information about the bugs, fixes, and changes in recent Firebird nightly builds, see [Burning Issues](http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/).