[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: flame

From: <penguin@peoplepc.com>

> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:48:21 +0100 (BST)
> Vivek <vivek@etla.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, penguin@peoplepc.com 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.
> It's been months since I've had it installed, so mayhaps it's been

Doesn't that make your whole rant seriously suspect :-)

I use it (primarily on an 800MHz Celeron, but sometimes on a 333MHz Celeron)
and it's working fine almost all the time.  There's no doubt that the
original Mozilla release had serious memory leaks, but it hasn't been a
problem for a long time now.

> fixed, although there were enough (what I call) design flaws to disuade
> me from reinstalling it now at version 1.0.

Well, design flaws are entirely subjective.  Frankly, I prefer Internet
Explorer :-)
> I knew I would take a hit for that one, and I guess I deserve it.
> Perhaps I should have compared Mozilla to Opera (versions 5 or 6; I
> realize it's not open-sourced but this is an imperfect world), or even

Imperfect, but given the forum you're talking to, a _very_ important

> Konqueror in this regard.  Konqueror would would have made a good
> comparison in many ways: license, stability, bloat, features, speed,
> bloat, configurability, maturity level, bloat, etc.  Unfortunately, I
> will install neither to do the test, and believe Konq would win in every
> category anyway.

Definitely not true.  I've found very few pages that don't work under
Mozilla.  Very many that don't work under Konqueror (for browsing, I use
them about equally).  I doubt it can be considered any more configurable,
it's far from being as mature, and I'm really unsure about the bloat, bloat
and bloat.  One place it was far superior was Java support.  I had a bitch
of a time getting Mozilla to install the Java plugin.  But it works equally
in both, now.
> Maybe my memory is a bit exagerated, if you say eight seconds to load
> Mozilla, I have to believe you; it sure seemed like 20.  It was
> too long, I know that, quite like Netscape.

Only about 5 seconds on my 800MHz Celeron

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-laptop-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: