If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
Is Seamonkey browser faster than Chrome browser? Is it as reliable?
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
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). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
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. :-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
| 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
| 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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Seamonkey
| 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|