On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I warn anyone who values system stability to think hard about using > Mozilla. It's painfully slow, a screen hog, and also has memory leaks; > and that's when it's it's working _right_.
So far you seem to be describing the way netscape 4 behaves, not mozilla. Your experience may of course be different. > When it's not working right it can not only crash itself, but can/will > crash the X session, put the processor into a loop, start processes that > refuse to be "killed," and crash the system, forcing unhealthy reboots. So far, so netscape: I can't say mozilla has done this to me for a few months. > Anyone using a machine slower than, say 600mHz with plenty of RAM, could > forget about it anyway, it's just too Bloated and Slow, even if coupled > with a very lightweight wm. Not to mention the effect that it has on a > laptop running off battery: could easily cut the battery time in half or > less versus using Links (I know it's an unfair comparison, I use it to > express my point about battery usage) due to all the disk Not only an unfair comparison, but a pointless one. Any graphics heavy app will cut battery life, as will anything that has to do a lot of processing. > writing/swappping that invariably occurs. Just loading the program took > me about 20 seconds of hard-core disk usage when I had it installed, and > i have a very up-to-date machine, and built the thing from source so it > was optimized. 8 seconds on a machine that's ~5 years old, stock unoptimised binary. It's a 300Mhz PII box. > In my opinion, one pays too much in terms of performance, time, and > stability for what Mozilla offers in features. I think there's a problem with your set up somewhere. YMMV. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
