Re: Unidentified subject!
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> I warn anyone who values system stability to think hard about using
> Mozilla. It's painfully slow, a screen hog, and also has memory leaks;
> and that's when it's it's working _right_.
So far you seem to be describing the way netscape 4 behaves, not mozilla.
Your experience may of course be different.
> When it's not working right it can not only crash itself, but can/will
> crash the X session, put the processor into a loop, start processes that
> refuse to be "killed," and crash the system, forcing unhealthy reboots.
So far, so netscape: I can't say mozilla has done this to me for a few
> Anyone using a machine slower than, say 600mHz with plenty of RAM, could
> forget about it anyway, it's just too Bloated and Slow, even if coupled
> with a very lightweight wm. Not to mention the effect that it has on a
> laptop running off battery: could easily cut the battery time in half or
> less versus using Links (I know it's an unfair comparison, I use it to
> express my point about battery usage) due to all the disk
Not only an unfair comparison, but a pointless one. Any graphics heavy app
will cut battery life, as will anything that has to do a lot of processing.
> writing/swappping that invariably occurs. Just loading the program took
> me about 20 seconds of hard-core disk usage when I had it installed, and
> i have a very up-to-date machine, and built the thing from source so it
> was optimized.
8 seconds on a machine that's ~5 years old, stock unoptimised binary.
It's a 300Mhz PII box.
> In my opinion, one pays too much in terms of performance, time, and
> stability for what Mozilla offers in features.
I think there's a problem with your set up somewhere. YMMV.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
- From: email@example.com