I've been reading the posts from people who have been quite adamant,
even rude, about SeaMonkey 2's deficiencies. I held off from installing
2.0.0, and waited from 2.0.1. I thought there were bound to be some
problems, but how could it be all that bad?
It's that bad.
First there's the need to provide your master password when you start
it. Yes, I know it's been complained about at length, but how on earth
could something like that slip through the development process? Do the
developers not use master passwords?
Second it is just mind-numbingly slow. It takes for ever to resolve site
addresses and forever to download web pages. It often just times out. SM
1.1.18 has no problems at all, on the exact same system (neither does
Opera).
Flashblock will not install. It just gets itself into an install loop:
every time you start SM 2.0.1, Flashblock tries to install again.
The new download progress dialog's ridiculous small buttons are another
issue, but this has been beaten to death (and I wish this new design had
been).
The forms manager (or lack thereof) is going to cause me problems, and
is one reason I've avoided Firefox.
I do understand that an enormous amount of effort has gone into SM 2,
but I'm left wondering: for what? Firefox works much better than this,
and I use a different email program anyway, so really all I use
SeaMonkey for is newsgroups and the better user interface, but now the
user interface of SeaMonkey has taken a sharp turn for the worse.
I'm sorry, but I really can't use SM 2. With the end of maintenance to
SM 1, I'm going to have to find myself an alternative. Opera seems to
work quite well, it will take a bit of getting used to, the main
drawbacks being no NoScript, no Flashblock, and no AdBlock+.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
