Ed Mullen wrote:
On 6/10/17 at 8:39 PM, David C. Mores's prodigious digits fired off with
great aplomb:
EE wrote:
rickman wrote:
When using SeaMonkey for reading newsgroups, I see a number of
differences from T-bird. One that is particularly annoying is when
reading a thread new posts often show up in the middle with other parts
of the thread outside of the thread pane. An easy way to see if any
other posts remain unread in this thread is to use the \ key to close
the thread. If an underline remains I could then press 'N' to take me
to the next unread post in that thread in T-bird. In SeaMonkey it
takes
me to the first unread post in the GROUP!
Obviously this is a divergence from T-bird. Was this something that
was
changed in SeaMonkey or in T-bird?
I find any number of differences in usability like this. I think if I
could get T-bird to work on my machine I would switch back. But it ran
even slower than SeaMonkey does, so SeaMonkey is a net improvement,
just
not a large one.
For that matter, why did SeaMonkey split off from T-bird? What was the
fundamental issue that created a new tool so similar to the old?
What do you mean, "outside of the thread pane"? If a thread exists, it
has to be in the thread pane, unless you think that some part of it was
not sent.
SeaMonkey did not split from Thunderbird. Thunderbird and Firefox split
off from the Mozilla suite, and SeaMonkey was a continuation of the
Mozilla suite, only kept more up to date by having the cores of
Thunderbird and Firefox.
As I recall it from the discussion at the time, Thunderbird and
Firefox were created as separate, single function applications to make
them faster and more responsive than the combined multi-function
application.
That was part of the rationale.
I never understood or appreciated this view because I always found the
Seamonkey multi-function application to be entirely responsive and
fast enough for me. Like what are we talking about? 300ms verses
500ms or some such - not really perceptible for most of us in day to
day usage. Having the mail and browser app, etc. rolled into one
seemed to be - and continues to be - a supremely convenient and
efficient way to go, but your mileage and situation may vary.
A long time ago, because of the faster/lighter argument, I did a
comparison of SM vs separate apps.
<https://edmullen.net/mozilla/moz_compare.php>
The original was done, I think, in 2006. I re-ran them in 2013.
Thanks for adding your quantitative study information to this
discussion. It's interesting, and made me realize that my comments on
fastness were about operational fastness and not about the app startup
time fastness - which likely is what the original FF/TB/SM discussion
was about.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
