Steve Dunn wrote:
On 2019-02-25 13:01, Dirk Munk wrote:
For many people the browser is their primary application, so making
it run as smoothly as possible is quite a logical pursuit.
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.
That's one of the two main reasons I've largely (and reluctantly)
abandoned SeaMonkey, the other being its archaic extension support
that means none of the extensions I rely on have been updated in about
a year and a half (and never will be).
-Steve
In my opinion it was a very bad decision by Mozilla when they split
Netscape/Mozilla into a separate browser and e-mail client. I started
with Netscape 2.0, and I'm still happy with Seamonkey. But I suppose
you're right that it would be nice if Seamonkey could be modernized
internally for a better performance.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
