Steve Dunn wrote:
Frankly, if a user's concern is having a browser that runs as smoothly as possible, SeaMonkey is not the right browser. Despite spawning dozens of threads, it is quite poor at making use of multiple cores; I generally find that it won't use much more than one core's worth of CPU power (e.g. on a four-core system, the SeaMonkey process won't go much above 25% utilization), and so all it takes is one tab that's consuming CPU cycles to make the whole thing almost unresponsive. (And yes, that's with a memory cache that I had increased from the default long ago.) Firefox and Chrome both run rings around it in this department.
Yep. See my other post in this thread. I'm seeing the same CPU usage limit on my quad-core system.
But I like SM's endless customizability; it would take weeks or months for me to "train" a new browser/email suite, more if they were separate programs.
-- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
