Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 04, 2016, 06:22:07 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?  (Read 7019 times)

tinjaw

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,927
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« on: October 23, 2009, 08:52:28 AM »
I see that RC2 of SeaMonkey is now out. I haven't used SeaMonkey in the past; instead using Firefox and Thunderbird side-by-side.

I am interested in using SeaMonkey for the added convenience of an integrated solution, but am afraid that I will not be able to use all of the wonderful Firefox extensions that I have come to depend on.

What has been your experience with SeaMonkey and it's ability to use Firefox extensions? Has anybody that has used the Firefox-Thunderbird combo also used SeaMonkey? How do they compare?

Tuxman

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,764
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2009, 09:10:36 AM »
My Firefox extension works with SeaMonkey.  ;D
Except for that, I mainly use Fx/Tb. The "added convenience of an integrated solution" doesn't really satisfy me, as it is rather unflexible indeed.

rgdot

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 1,879
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2009, 10:10:01 AM »
I am not sure where the lack of flexibility comes from?
I remember back in the early days Firefox (Firebird) when the decision was made to separate the apps every one was talking about bloat but I never understood why two programs instead of one is less strain on any system. Seamonkey wasn't and isn't hogging my memory/CPU any more than even Thunderbird by itself let alone Firefox which...well the memory usage of Firefox is well documented.

To answer the OP, I have very few extensions installed on my Seamonkey but anything I have tried has worked.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 10:13:17 AM by rgdot »

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,089
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2009, 05:59:06 PM »
- rgdot, do forgive me, but I would very much like you to spell out if you are using the new 2.0RC or the "old" stable 1.1.18 version, please? Or more precisely, I want of course to know if 2.0RC has turned out to be stable?

rgdot

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 1,879
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2009, 09:43:03 PM »
Yes 2.0, since the day it was available:

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4) Gecko/20091017 SeaMonkey/2.0

No stability issues that I have seen and I do use it daily, however not as primary browser. I held out longer than most but did eventually move to Firefox.

marcdw

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
    • Windows 3.x Schemes and Themes
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2009, 10:52:35 PM »
Regarding v2.0 how is it as far as memory usage and/or startup time?
On my older ThinkPad (y'know, those 512MB max machines) I can easily see
how well a program works. Besides the rather large memory footprint of
Firefox its startup time is extremely slow (the same can be said of other
apps based on similar code such as SongBird, Komodo Edit, and to a lesser
degree Thunderbird).

I've been using SeaMonkey 1.1.8 quite often as of late as it seems so
stable. I can browse here, there, and everywhere and memory use
seems to be fairly static.
My once fave default browser, SlimBrowser on top of IE7 (nice and fast),
will see a major memory gobble once I hit flash-based sites and whatnot.

SeaMonkey turns out to be a good compromise between Firefox and IE (plus I get
to use NoScript, something I wish was available on the IE side of things).

So anyway I was wondering if SeaMonkey 2.0 will be using some of that
same code in the aforementioned Mozilla apps that cause them to be so
slow starting up as well as their memory usage.
I reckon I'll just have to give it a shot and see.

Marc

xtabber

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2009, 06:25:55 PM »
I use both SeaMonkey and Firefox -- Firefox as default browser, but clearing cookies and other info between sessions, and SeaMonkey for email and browsing with persistent cookies -- but the browser I use most of the time is Opera anyway.

The browser in SeaMonkey 2.0 is essentially Firefox 3.5.4 with a SeaMonkey look to it (and SeaMonkey type preferences) and the email client is closer to Thunderbird, so the memory footprint is equivalent to either of those, but if you use both the email client and browser at the same time, you'll see substantial savings.

My checks showed that Seamonkey 1.1.18 browser by itself used about 20MB RAM on startup, Firefox about 32MB, and Seamonkey 2.0 about 30MB for either the browser or email client alone, but only about 38MB for both at the same time. I didn't do any serious testing to see how they compared when actually loading web sites, although sites that worked with Firefox but not SeaMonkey 1.1.x do work with 2.0

One thing to be aware of is that 2.0 stores profile data like Firefox and Thunderbird, not like 1.1.x. If, as I do, you store your data in a non-standard location to allow easy syncing between computers, you'll need to take some extra steps.  On first run, let SeaMonkey import everything from your 1.1.x profile into the new profile location, then move the contents of the new profile folder where you want it to reside and edit profile.ini in %APPDATA%/Mozilla/SeaMonkey to point there. See http://support.mozil...+up+your+information for more information on moving profiles.


marcdw

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
    • Windows 3.x Schemes and Themes
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2009, 07:17:57 PM »
Only minutes after posting my questions I found out that v2.0 stable had been released (and today
when running Secunia's security tool it has already labeled v1.1.8 as an end-of-life app  :huh: ).

After installation, configuration, and a reboot (unrelated to SeaMonkey) v2.0 started quick enough
and memory use is still pretty good. No issues with general browsing, mail and news use.

At the moment though it won't replace my 1.1.8. The RoboForm Toolbar does not work with v2
and the RoboForm Bookmarklet (a neat workaround for unsupported browsers as well as for use
in Linux and Mac) doesn't work either but that may be due to NoScript (will disable and test later).
At the moment several extensions that work with 1.1.8 or even the 2.0 betas aren't ready for
2.0 stable like Mnenhy, Launchy, and PrefBar. So far I only have NoScript and FlashGot.
And I kind of liked the old Classic theme.
I use the Calendar extension with 1.1.8. Haven't checked if it's available for 2.0 but word has it
the latest Lightning beta may work.

Thanks for the tip regarding moving profiles as I do keep the profile in a non-standard location.

Marc

dantheman

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 591
  • Be good if you can!
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2009, 08:11:59 PM »
Although i too have made the switch from Seamonkey to Phoenix Firefox a long time ago.
Seamonkey2 has proven to be quite impressive. Speed at startup and page rendering is just no.1

But, being able to test latest beta builds of Thunderbird and Firefox with:
"Nightly Tester Tools" to make the dozen extensions work,
http://www.oxymoroni.../web/firefox/nightly
I think i'll still keep on with TB and Firefox.

Tuxman

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,764
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2009, 08:28:29 PM »
The Nightly Tester Tools are not really necessary for that.

about:config - Boolean extensions.checkCompatibility - set to false. No need to use a separate extension for that.

(Disclaimer: Only tested with Firefox.)

dantheman

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 591
  • Be good if you can!
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2009, 09:04:38 AM »
Tuxman, dat's a good tip!  Thanks!   :Thmbsup:

BTW, i just checked resource usage and Seamonkey seems to be stable at using a third less than Firefox.
Thunderbird b4 uses just as much as Firefox. So, alltogether, you save quite a bit if using Seamonkey as browser and email client.   :)

Tuxman

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,764
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2009, 09:48:24 AM »
Firefox 3.6 beta 1 seems to take less resources (subjectively).. however, Seamonkey was never my choice. I don't like its "look and feel".

dantheman

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 591
  • Be good if you can!
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2009, 10:15:34 AM »
Seamonkey does feel a bit archaic but, hey! who doesn't like the retro look sometimes?!

BTW, i just tested Alfred Kayer's LittleMonkey theme which isn't compatible with 2 yet (created boolean with extensions.checkCompatibility - set to false as you suggested) and it's not doing too bad! I did however notice a mild boost in resources but it's still under Firefox 3.6 b1 on my XP Home.

Tuxman

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,764
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2009, 10:19:51 AM »
Seamonkey does feel a bit archaic but, hey! who doesn't like the retro look sometimes?!
A browser is something I see all the time. I don't want to have a retro look on my still quite modern notebook.  :P
(I don't actually need any look while browsing, but I added a dozen of buttons which are useful in some cases...)

chasingclouds

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2006
  • *
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anybody Here Use SeaMonkey (2.0)?
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2009, 09:21:29 AM »
My gripe with Seamonkey 1.18 and before was the failure of the email to keep the extensions when up dating. Having to reinstall UK English dictionary every time is irritating for a start. Now 'official' version 2.0 installed without picking up the UK English dictionary so it looks like this may be an ongoing thing. Pity, I like the SeaMonkey format but not the reinstallation of previously installed extensions, which Thunderbird and Firefox seem to cope with.