> Heather> Galeon really is mozilla, different skin. Find me a way to use > Heather> less than all of Mozilla on low-quality systems (only 32 or 40 > Heather> MB of true RAM) and I'll be paying closer attention.
This is not quite correct. Galeon uses a real GTK interface, not an XUL skin for mozilla. That is a difference when it comes to speed and memory useage. But only a minor difference, since mozilla needs lots of memory anyway... Also it does not include an IRC Client, Mail client, News reader, HTML-Editor... > You can try skipstone (http://muhri.net/skipstone/), also available as a > Debian package. It's another mozilla front end, but is much more Skipstone isn't too different from what galeon does... It also uses gtkmozembed. > lightweight than Galeon, and only uses GTK+, not Gnome. Top reports it > as using "only" about 14MB (versus 29MB for Galeon), so it might be > usable on a low-memory system. I guess you have been using galeon for some time, whereas skipstone was freshly started. If you use them equally (cache etc.) there is not much difference in them. > Development seems to be slower than Galeon, but it should be sufficient > for basic browsing needs. It also seems to use native GTK+ scroll bars, Actually there is not much development at all, whereas galeon has a new version almost ready which is lots faster in tab switching etc. than the old one... > unlike Galeon (although I was under the impression that that was > impossible). It depends on the way mozilla was built. There is some flag you can set during mozilla build which affects this "native theme support". How this can be different in skipstone and in galeon i do not know. If you want a really lightweight browser you should look at dillo, or at gtkhtml2 based browsers. I guess any browser using the mozilla rendering engine will get all this overhead (ok, galeon has gnome overhead additionally) and thus will be a bad choice for systems with less than 64 MB RAM. Greetings, Erich
