Seamonkey

Is Seamonkey browser faster than Chrome browser? Is it as reliable?

Jeff T wrote:
Is Seamonkey browser faster than Chrome browser? Is it as reliable?

They are just different in their design philosophies and features (as is
true for most browsers). I don't think "browser speed" or "reliability"
are the determining factors here. Check out the reviews of each to get a
good idea on the differences. (At least to me, Chrome just seems too
minimalistic, but then again, that was its design intent).

Jeff T wrote:
Is Seamonkey browser faster than Chrome browser? Is it as reliable?

I don't know about faster since I don't use Chrome.
SM is a suite containing browser, emailer, etc.
The browser is sort of a clone of FF.
The email sort of a clone of TBird.
Don't get SM 2.29 as is appears to be very buggy.
See:
mozilla.support.seamonkey

| Is Seamonkey browser faster than Chrome browser? Is it as reliable?
|

Why not just try them? Firefox, SeaMonkey and
Pale Moon are all basically the same browser, based
on Mozilla's Gecko rendering "engine". Chrome
is based on Apple's WebKit, as is Safari. So the
rendering "engines" are different. But in my experience
everything except IE can be depended on to render
pretty much the same way.

One big difference is that Chrome is made by Google,
the biggest tracking, datamining, advertising company
online. They're the people who don't think you have a
right to privacy. The Mozilla browsers are open source,
so they're *relatively* honest, though Mozilla gets nearly
all of its money from Google. Thus, in recent years they've
tended to hide settings that are not tracking-friendly,
like cookie options, script and the ability to block 3rd-
party images. Another possible criticism of Mozilla is that
they seem to have too much time and money on their hands.
They're making over $100 million/year from Google via
royalties paid for setting Google as the default search
engine. As a result Firefox has become grossly
overproduced, with new versions coming out every few
weeks and design consistency going out the window.

Why do you put a high value on speed? The main factors
there are your Internet connection and the server you're
getting a page from. I find that most webpages have been
nearly instant in rendering for many years now -- ever
since I got a highspeed connection. The pages that are
not instant usually can't be helped. So maybe you're talking
about .2 seconds vs .3 seconds to render in some cases?
To my mind there are a lot more important factors in
choosing a browser than that kind of speed difference.
You can find alleged studies showing that various browsers
are the fastest. Each browser maker seems to design the
tests to favor their browser. But it's like MHz in CPUs or
the smoothness of a car door closing: A lot of marketing
focussed on a largely irrelevant factor.

Mayayana wrote:
Is Seamonkey browser faster than Chrome browser? Is it as reliable?


Why not just try them? Firefox, SeaMonkey and
Pale Moon are all basically the same browser, based
on Mozilla's Gecko rendering "engine". Chrome
is based on Apple's WebKit, as is Safari. So the
rendering "engines" are different. But in my experience
everything except IE can be depended on to render
pretty much the same way.

One big difference is that Chrome is made by Google,
the biggest tracking, datamining, advertising company
online. They're the people who don't think you have a
right to privacy. The Mozilla browsers are open source,
so they're *relatively* honest, though Mozilla gets nearly
all of its money from Google. Thus, in recent years they've
tended to hide settings that are not tracking-friendly,
like cookie options, script and the ability to block 3rd-
party images. Another possible criticism of Mozilla is that
they seem to have too much time and money on their hands.
They're making over $100 million/year from Google via
royalties paid for setting Google as the default search
engine. As a result Firefox has become grossly
overproduced, with new versions coming out every few
weeks and design consistency going out the window.

Why do you put a high value on speed? The main factors
there are your Internet connection and the server you're
getting a page from. I find that most webpages have been
nearly instant in rendering for many years now -- ever
since I got a highspeed connection. The pages that are
not instant usually can't be helped. So maybe you're talking
about .2 seconds vs .3 seconds to render in some cases?
To my mind there are a lot more important factors in
choosing a browser than that kind of speed difference.
You can find alleged studies showing that various browsers
are the fastest. Each browser maker seems to design the
tests to favor their browser. But it's like MHz in CPUs or
the smoothness of a car door closing: A lot of marketing
focussed on a largely irrelevant factor.

Firefox:
At this point I think it might be best to stick with Pale Moon as a good
Firefox replacement. I stopped at version 24 for both. So far, so good.
:-)

Jeff T wrote:
Is Seamonkey browser faster than Chrome browser? Is it as reliable?



Here's a slide set. Took me a while
to find a non-crap article. Many sites
put "speed" in the tag words for browser
comparison, and then offer absolutely
nothing of interest in the actual article.
These slides are a bit better. It's possible
these slides are presented using Adobe Flash.
One of my browsers didn't render anything of interest
when fed this link (I keep a browser with no Flash plugin).

http://www.slideshare.net/MID_AS/bro...formance-tests

There is a conclusion page on the slide set as well.

My number one consideration, is "least obnoxious browser".
Rather than scoring positive points for speed or memory
usage, I use a subtractive scoring system, where the
more a browser ****es me off, the less the chance of
me ever using it again. Works for me.

And I suppose that's why for me, testing the browsers
is the only way to know. Since no one else is going to
share my taste in "obnoxious" or "not obnoxious".

Paul

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:56:48 -0500, Jeff T wrote:
Is Seamonkey browser faster than Chrome browser? Is it as reliable?

Seamonkey is based on Firefox, which is IMO, is slower than Chrome.
Reliability is same as Firefox.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:21:52 -0400, Mayayana wrote:
Why not just try them? Firefox, SeaMonkey and
Pale Moon are all basically the same browser, based
on Mozilla's Gecko rendering "engine". Chrome
is based on Apple's WebKit, as is Safari. So the
rendering "engines" are different. But in my experience
everything except IE can be depended on to render
pretty much the same way.

FYI, Pale Moon has stopped supporting Windows XP, so new versions won't run
on XP.

| FYI, Pale Moon has stopped supporting Windows XP, so new versions won't
run
| on XP.

Where did you see that? I'm looking a palemoon.org and
I don't see it. The supported list specifically includes XP.
PM is essentially Firefox, with more options, less bloat, and
not so much rush to push out updates. I wouldn't expect
them to change support from what FF supports, and I
haven't heard anything about Mozilla ending XP support.
It's still running on about 25% of computers online.

In any case, I'm doing similar to what Bill in CO is doing.
My current FF version is 24. My current PM version is 20.
Maybe I should update PM, but I've become increasingly
wary of updating browsers. The Mozilla people keep breaking
things needlessly and much of that leaks through to PM.
One of the biggest things for me is tabs. I don't use them.
I don't want them. Yet there's an irrational fad going in that
direction, with an attitude that people shouldn't be able to
choose. I'm afraid that eventually FF is going to be released
as tabs-only. At this point I have 4 extensions that are
*only* to fix things Mozilla has broken:

Hide Tab Bar With 1 Tab
Restore View Source
Settings Sanity
Status-4-Evar

I wouldn't install a new version anymore without backing
up the old version first, just in case the new version is "beyond
the pale". And that means I also have to back up the increasing
number of extensions required to make an increasingly
handicapped browser work properly with just the most basic
functionality, like a status bar to see what's loading and a
setting to enable/disable script!
If not for vulnerability fixes I probably wouldn't update either
browser for years at a time.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:17:18 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

| FYI, Pale Moon has stopped supporting Windows XP, so new versions won't
run
| on XP.

Where did you see that? I'm looking a palemoon.org and
I don't see it. The supported list specifically includes XP.
PM is essentially Firefox, with more options, less bloat, and
not so much rush to push out updates. I wouldn't expect
them to change support from what FF supports, and I
haven't heard anything about Mozilla ending XP support.
It's still running on about 25% of computers online.

In any case, I'm doing similar to what Bill in CO is doing.
My current FF version is 24. My current PM version is 20.
Maybe I should update PM, but I've become increasingly
wary of updating browsers. The Mozilla people keep breaking
things needlessly and much of that leaks through to PM.
One of the biggest things for me is tabs. I don't use them.
I don't want them. Yet there's an irrational fad going in that
direction, with an attitude that people shouldn't be able to
choose. I'm afraid that eventually FF is going to be released
as tabs-only. At this point I have 4 extensions that are
*only* to fix things Mozilla has broken:

Hide Tab Bar With 1 Tab
Restore View Source
Settings Sanity
Status-4-Evar

I wouldn't install a new version anymore without backing
up the old version first, just in case the new version is "beyond
the pale". And that means I also have to back up the increasing
number of extensions required to make an increasingly
handicapped browser work properly with just the most basic
functionality, like a status bar to see what's loading and a
setting to enable/disable script!
If not for vulnerability fixes I probably wouldn't update either
browser for years at a time.

It was announced in the forum:

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5383

JJ wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:17:18 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

FYI, Pale Moon has stopped supporting Windows XP, so new versions won't
run
on XP.

Where did you see that? I'm looking a palemoon.org and
I don't see it. The supported list specifically includes XP.
PM is essentially Firefox, with more options, less bloat, and
not so much rush to push out updates. I wouldn't expect
them to change support from what FF supports, and I
haven't heard anything about Mozilla ending XP support.
It's still running on about 25% of computers online.

In any case, I'm doing similar to what Bill in CO is doing.
My current FF version is 24. My current PM version is 20.
Maybe I should update PM, but I've become increasingly
wary of updating browsers. The Mozilla people keep breaking
things needlessly and much of that leaks through to PM.
One of the biggest things for me is tabs. I don't use them.
I don't want them. Yet there's an irrational fad going in that
direction, with an attitude that people shouldn't be able to
choose. I'm afraid that eventually FF is going to be released
as tabs-only. At this point I have 4 extensions that are
*only* to fix things Mozilla has broken:

Hide Tab Bar With 1 Tab
Restore View Source
Settings Sanity
Status-4-Evar

I wouldn't install a new version anymore without backing
up the old version first, just in case the new version is "beyond
the pale". And that means I also have to back up the increasing
number of extensions required to make an increasingly
handicapped browser work properly with just the most basic
functionality, like a status bar to see what's loading and a
setting to enable/disable script!
If not for vulnerability fixes I probably wouldn't update either
browser for years at a time.

It was announced in the forum:

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5383

Thanks for posting this.
Looks like some of us will stick with ver 24, then.

| It was announced in the forum:
|
| https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5383

Thanks. I'm surprised they announced it "casually"
in the forum and haven't put it on their homepage.
But I got v. 24 anyway. That should last me a few
years.

| It was announced in the forum:
|
| https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5383

Apropos of that, I visited the K-Meleon site today
and found a new version is virtually done. There
seem to be some serious last minute bugs, though,
and it's been a very long time coming. I wonder if
the developers there really have the time and interest
to do the job.