dominique wrote:
INFO WG wrote, On 10/28/2009 1:03 PM:
Given that BOTH SM 2 and Firefox 3.5x are empty of all Add-Ons and so
forth...and main or basic options on both are set to an essentially
"clean" install...
SM 2 takes FAR longer to load in (Windows) than Firefox 3.5x does.
No matter what the system conditions, SM 2, even devoid of added
Add-On's and other extras...still takes 3x to 6x longer to load in.
Once cached, SM 2 load times drop, but still much longer than Firefox
3.5x.
And yes, this is seen on XP SP2, XP SP3, Vista and the initial Windows
7 as well, 2GB to 4GB CPU boxes.
Strange for now, might be given some SM 2 programmer thought as time
allows ?
Joe
Mmmmm, maybe you realize that you are not comparing similar products,
but a "simple" browser and a suite, including mail, IRC, composer, RSS
and news ....
Actually he isn't, starting the browser should be starting all the other stuff,
too, so it shouldn't slow you down.
As for me, I gladly prefer SM2, even at the cost of a slower startup !
Anyway, I only start it up once a day, and I'd rather complain on the
time my OS takes to boot up !!!! :-)
Fedora 12 boots faster than SM loads...
Dominique (using SM2 since the early alpha versions)
--
Bill Davidsen <david...@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
