Robert Howard wrote:
I don't understand why people want to use software that has no features. If
something has more than one feature, people bitch about bloat. FF is not
that bad nor is Seamonkey or any of the webkit stuff.
On Nov 26, 2009 9:52 PM, "Thomas Bewick" <tombewick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tobias Kieslich wrote: > > dillo, simplistic, bone simple, limitations on
the functionality > Bottom...
Seamonkey is quite fast. Although I am not using it now I have in the past
and I know it is used extensively in Puppylinux because it is full featured
and light weight, even including a mail client.
Since it is developed by Mozilla it is very similar to FF in functionality
but does not have all the extras that slow FF down.
I agree that FF has gotten very bloated in the last few years, I think to
compete with and explorer and make windows users happy. But as a result the
browser is not what it used to be.
I currently use chrome both on windows and in Arch and it runs the fastest
of any others for me.
Ouch!, But seriously. it is not the extra features that is a problem I
have run it without any plug-ins, and chrome has lots of features.
But honestly when I have run FF on my old pentium 3 it is very
noticeably slower then other browsers.
It runs my cpu out a lot higher than chrome. As computers have gotten
faster if you upgraded you won't notice much difference in speed on
anything because you have a enough resources to absorb it. But run those
same things side by side on an old pc and it is very noticeable. I know
that does not effect a lot of people, but it does some.
I pointed out the same thing to reviewer of Ubuntu. They compared Ubuntu
to Archlinux and said Ubuntu was not noticeably any slower, but they
reviewed it on a new box.
Arch is light-speeds faster then Ubuntu on this old thing, (I have used
both) and why I use Arch. Ubuntu has serious "bloat" But Arch is built
with only what I want in it, and as such is very fast.
