Rogério Brito:
>
> Excited with the promise that it would "shrink" in size in comparison to
> the suite/Seamonkey (which was one of the main arguments that they were
> using in the Phoenix 0.4 or so days), I started to use it as my main
> browser and also advocating its use for fellow people and to my students.
Same here. Phoenix/Firebird *was* damn fast.
> Furthermore, once loaded, Firefox uses about the same amount of virtual
> memory (in my, admittedly, non-scientific tests) as the suite, after
> browsing some pages. And that's not even counting having Thunderbird
> launched, which uses a bit more memory (as expected).
And it is not only memory usage. I rarely use Mozilla these days (and
only the browser part), but when I use it I always notive that it feels
generally faster than Firefox. Ok, I have 10+ extensions installed, but
even with the same extensions Firefox under win32 feels faster than
under Debian. I guess mozilla people nowadays concentrate more on
Windows (which is a shame).
> Point 3 here: Another thing that is slightly disturbing is that, under the
> very same hardware, running Firefox under Windows 2k and Debian to visit
> www.macslash.org one notices a dramatic slower scroll speed of that site.
> Something must clearly be different between the "same application" to have
> this behaviour (hint: you'll likely to be annoyed at this if you have a
> slower computer).
See above. I am in the glad position to have a still quite fast laptop
(1.3GHz Pentium M, 768MB RAM) but I am often astonished at Firefox's CPU
usage even when it is "idling".
J.
--
If I could have anything in the world it would have to be more money.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature