Hi everybody!
Since I have tried Puppy, I'm loving SeaMonkey 1.1.18. It works (in this old computer) fine, much faster than firefox and opera. I don't know why Opera on Puppy is so slow, back in windows it was the fastest. And firefox, of course, it has always been very sllooowww for me (even in a 2.2 Ghz computer).
I'm not using it for anything else than for browsing the web. So I even didn't take a look at the other applications that it includes. Even with them included, the browser is really fast.
So, the pre-loaded version is 1.1.18. The question is, installing the package from this website http://puppylinux.org/wikka/SeaMonkey and replacing this version for 2.0... will make it go slower (just like opera or firefox?) or it will keep it's great performance and will just add some new features?
Thank you for your advices!
Which one is faster? Seamokney 1.1.18 or 2.0?
Which one is faster? Seamokney 1.1.18 or 2.0?
[quote]"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas"
Karl Marx[/quote]
Karl Marx[/quote]
hello Volodya,
You can always try seamonkey 2... but I fear your problem might be ram. My system is only an athlon 2100+ so not much faster than yours, but I have 768MiB of ram... big difference. Do you have a swap partition? Firefox default cache settings are much higher than Seamonkey. These things also make a difference.
If the older seamonkey is working well for you stick with it..it is stable and fast enough. The newer seamonkey shares much more code with firefox, maybe a disadvantage to you, although it's default cache setting is much lower. Of course, if this is the problem, cache settings can be adjusted in preferences for both firefox and seamonkey.
Have fun
Cheers
You can always try seamonkey 2... but I fear your problem might be ram. My system is only an athlon 2100+ so not much faster than yours, but I have 768MiB of ram... big difference. Do you have a swap partition? Firefox default cache settings are much higher than Seamonkey. These things also make a difference.
If the older seamonkey is working well for you stick with it..it is stable and fast enough. The newer seamonkey shares much more code with firefox, maybe a disadvantage to you, although it's default cache setting is much lower. Of course, if this is the problem, cache settings can be adjusted in preferences for both firefox and seamonkey.
Have fun
Cheers
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access
Thanks for answering 01micko. I think you are right. I'm ram limited.
I will stick with this Seamonkey version, but I'd like to give a try to the newer one. If I install the newer, is there any way to keep the older version and choose which one I want to use each time I want to use whether the older or the newer version?
Thanks!
I will stick with this Seamonkey version, but I'd like to give a try to the newer one. If I install the newer, is there any way to keep the older version and choose which one I want to use each time I want to use whether the older or the newer version?
Thanks!
[quote]"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas"
Karl Marx[/quote]
Karl Marx[/quote]
This may not be the case, but the thought that came to mind was:
"What's faster? Sneezing or blinking?" Sometimes the difference is so negligable that we get lost in the nano seconds more or less it could take for an image to get rendered.
I too have little RAM, but find that if it takes a couple of micro seconds more... hey... even a couple of seconds more, it doesn't make or break my day.
Just a thought...
"What's faster? Sneezing or blinking?" Sometimes the difference is so negligable that we get lost in the nano seconds more or less it could take for an image to get rendered.
I too have little RAM, but find that if it takes a couple of micro seconds more... hey... even a couple of seconds more, it doesn't make or break my day.
Just a thought...