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 .... 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 !!!! :-)

Dominique (using SM2 since the early alpha versions)
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Reply via email to