Firebird vs. Mozilla

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by Max, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. Max

    Max Guest

    The hype says that Firebird is more system resource friendly than the
    Suite. I find this to be completely bogus in my observation. Now, before
    ya'll start to flame--I really love the design of *bird, and I use it and
    regular Mozilla every day, but I find myself coming back to the Suite
    because it's much snappier and more solid feeling.

    Moz and Bird startup times are virtually identical from a "cold" start on
    my machine. Both are using the stock UI. Both render pages very nicely.
    both use between 30-60 megs of memory depending on tabs, java, and flash
    of course.

    Mozilla is much snappier. When I close a tab--it snaps closed. With Bird,
    it takes 1-2 seconds. Ctrl+t takes a bit to open a tab. Overall, there's
    an eerie lag with just about everything. I put up with it because I like
    the Bird's ability to selectively block Javascript (from the Washington
    Post ;))

    I understand that Firebird's at its 0.71 release and will become much
    yummier in the near future as the code gets tighter.

    What I don't understand is all this misinformation about it being
    "lighter". I use Firebird when I want MORE features for crying out loud :O)

    Mozilla with its mail client open uses far less resources on my box than
    the two *birds combined + they play together much more nicely.

    At any rate, any ideas as to why Firebird would feel so heavy compared to
    Mozilla? Windowmanager choice matters not a whit.

    1.2ghz/256mb/mandrake9.1/fluxbox/gnome/KDE.
    --

    ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.

    ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
     
    Max, Feb 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Max

    Keith Bowes Guest

    Max wrote:
    > The hype says that Firebird is more system resource friendly than the
    > Suite. I find this to be completely bogus in my observation. Now, before
    > ya'll start to flame--I really love the design of *bird, and I use it and
    > regular Mozilla every day, but I find myself coming back to the Suite
    > because it's much snappier and more solid feeling.
    >
    > Moz and Bird startup times are virtually identical from a "cold" start on
    > my machine. Both are using the stock UI. Both render pages very nicely.
    > both use between 30-60 megs of memory depending on tabs, java, and flash
    > of course.
    >
    > Mozilla is much snappier. When I close a tab--it snaps closed. With Bird,
    > it takes 1-2 seconds. Ctrl+t takes a bit to open a tab. Overall, there's
    > an eerie lag with just about everything. I put up with it because I like
    > the Bird's ability to selectively block Javascript (from the Washington
    > Post ;))
    >
    > I understand that Firebird's at its 0.71 release and will become much
    > yummier in the near future as the code gets tighter.
    >
    > What I don't understand is all this misinformation about it being
    > "lighter". I use Firebird when I want MORE features for crying out loud :O)
    >
    > Mozilla with its mail client open uses far less resources on my box than
    > the two *birds combined + they play together much more nicely.
    >


    Yes, Firebird isn't that much faster than the Suite. It is a little
    bit, if you only want the browser. However, opening up the Suite and
    then the built-in Mail & Newsgroups, Composer, and Calendar is much
    faster and uses less memory than opening up Firebird, Thunderbird, Nvu
    and Sunbird separately. Maybe the integrated GRE will make it much
    faster; but for the time being, the *birds is definitely hype.
     
    Keith Bowes, Feb 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Max wrote:

    > The hype says that Firebird is more system resource friendly than the
    > Suite. I find this to be completely bogus in my observation. Now, before
    > ya'll start to flame--I really love the design of *bird, and I use it and
    > regular Mozilla every day, but I find myself coming back to the Suite
    > because it's much snappier and more solid feeling.


    I agree. The main attraction I find for FB is the customizabilty of
    toolbars. If we could get that in the suite, I would probable bail on
    FB as default browser.
    >
    > Moz and Bird startup times are virtually identical from a "cold" start on
    > my machine. Both are using the stock UI. Both render pages very nicely.
    > both use between 30-60 megs of memory depending on tabs, java, and flash
    > of course.


    Much the same here.

    >
    > Mozilla is much snappier. When I close a tab--it snaps closed. With Bird,
    > it takes 1-2 seconds. Ctrl+t takes a bit to open a tab. Overall, there's
    > an eerie lag with just about everything. I put up with it because I like
    > the Bird's ability to selectively block Javascript (from the Washington
    > Post ;))


    I don't notice that with FB. Indeed, I sometimes lose track of which
    browser I'm using. I started using different themes jst to make it
    obvious at a glance.

    >
    > I understand that Firebird's at its 0.71 release and will become much
    > yummier in the near future as the code gets tighter.


    0.8 due out Monday.

    >
    > What I don't understand is all this misinformation about it being
    > "lighter". I use Firebird when I want MORE features for crying out loud :O)
    >
    > Mozilla with its mail client open uses far less resources on my box than
    > the two *birds combined + they play together much more nicely.


    Well, FN/TB are integrated very nicely here, though it takes some
    playing around with. You're probably right on the resource use issue.

    Size on disk is another interesxting point. FB/TB together take up 41.4
    megs, while the suite takes up 35.7. I suppoese in this day od giant
    hard drives its not a huge consideration, but I find the stat intriguing.
    >
    > At any rate, any ideas as to why Firebird would feel so heavy compared to
    > Mozilla? Windowmanager choice matters not a whit.
    >
    > 1.2ghz/256mb/mandrake9.1/fluxbox/gnome/KDE.


    Above data is for windows, though the ratio is about the same on my Red
    Hat 9 box.

    Lee
     
    Leonidas Jones, Feb 6, 2004
    #3
  4. Max

    Max Guest

    On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:50:26 +0000, Leonidas Jones etched in a large wheel
    of gouda with a butter knife:

    > Max wrote:
    >
    >> The hype says that Firebird is more system resource friendly than the
    >> Suite. I find this to be completely bogus in my observation. Now, before
    >> ya'll start to flame--I really love the design of *bird, and I use it and
    >> regular Mozilla every day, but I find myself coming back to the Suite
    >> because it's much snappier and more solid feeling.

    >
    > I agree. The main attraction I find for FB is the customizabilty of
    > toolbars. If we could get that in the suite, I would probable bail on
    > FB as default browser.
    >>
    >> Moz and Bird startup times are virtually identical from a "cold" start on
    >> my machine. Both are using the stock UI. Both render pages very nicely.
    >> both use between 30-60 megs of memory depending on tabs, java, and flash
    >> of course.

    >
    > Much the same here.
    >
    >>
    >> Mozilla is much snappier. When I close a tab--it snaps closed. With Bird,
    >> it takes 1-2 seconds. Ctrl+t takes a bit to open a tab. Overall, there's
    >> an eerie lag with just about everything. I put up with it because I like
    >> the Bird's ability to selectively block Javascript (from the Washington
    >> Post ;))

    >
    > I don't notice that with FB. Indeed, I sometimes lose track of which
    > browser I'm using. I started using different themes jst to make it
    > obvious at a glance.
    >
    >>
    >> I understand that Firebird's at its 0.71 release and will become much
    >> yummier in the near future as the code gets tighter.

    >
    > 0.8 due out Monday.
    >
    >>
    >> What I don't understand is all this misinformation about it being
    >> "lighter". I use Firebird when I want MORE features for crying out loud :O)
    >>
    >> Mozilla with its mail client open uses far less resources on my box than
    >> the two *birds combined + they play together much more nicely.

    >
    > Well, FN/TB are integrated very nicely here, though it takes some
    > playing around with. You're probably right on the resource use issue.
    >
    > Size on disk is another interesxting point. FB/TB together take up 41.4
    > megs, while the suite takes up 35.7. I suppoese in this day od giant
    > hard drives its not a huge consideration, but I find the stat intriguing.
    >>
    >> At any rate, any ideas as to why Firebird would feel so heavy compared to
    >> Mozilla? Windowmanager choice matters not a whit.
    >>
    >> 1.2ghz/256mb/mandrake9.1/fluxbox/gnome/KDE.

    >
    > Above data is for windows, though the ratio is about the same on my Red
    > Hat 9 box.
    >
    > Lee


    Thanks for responding to my rant :p

    0.8 out Monday? Wahoo!


    --

    ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.

    ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
     
    Max, Feb 7, 2004
    #4
  5. Max wrote:
    > On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:50:26 +0000, Leonidas Jones etched in a large wheel
    > of gouda with a butter knife:
    >
    >
    >>Max wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The hype says that Firebird is more system resource friendly than the
    >>>Suite. I find this to be completely bogus in my observation. Now, before
    >>>ya'll start to flame--I really love the design of *bird, and I use it and
    >>>regular Mozilla every day, but I find myself coming back to the Suite
    >>>because it's much snappier and more solid feeling.

    >>
    >>I agree. The main attraction I find for FB is the customizabilty of
    >>toolbars. If we could get that in the suite, I would probable bail on
    >>FB as default browser.
    >>
    >>>Moz and Bird startup times are virtually identical from a "cold" start on
    >>>my machine. Both are using the stock UI. Both render pages very nicely.
    >>>both use between 30-60 megs of memory depending on tabs, java, and flash
    >>>of course.

    >>
    >>Much the same here.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Mozilla is much snappier. When I close a tab--it snaps closed. With Bird,
    >>>it takes 1-2 seconds. Ctrl+t takes a bit to open a tab. Overall, there's
    >>>an eerie lag with just about everything. I put up with it because I like
    >>>the Bird's ability to selectively block Javascript (from the Washington
    >>>Post ;))

    >>
    >>I don't notice that with FB. Indeed, I sometimes lose track of which
    >>browser I'm using. I started using different themes jst to make it
    >>obvious at a glance.
    >>
    >>
    >>>I understand that Firebird's at its 0.71 release and will become much
    >>>yummier in the near future as the code gets tighter.

    >>
    >>0.8 due out Monday.
    >>
    >>
    >>>What I don't understand is all this misinformation about it being
    >>>"lighter". I use Firebird when I want MORE features for crying out loud :O)
    >>>
    >>>Mozilla with its mail client open uses far less resources on my box than
    >>>the two *birds combined + they play together much more nicely.

    >>
    >>Well, FN/TB are integrated very nicely here, though it takes some
    >>playing around with. You're probably right on the resource use issue.
    >>
    >>Size on disk is another interesxting point. FB/TB together take up 41.4
    >>megs, while the suite takes up 35.7. I suppoese in this day od giant
    >>hard drives its not a huge consideration, but I find the stat intriguing.
    >>
    >>>At any rate, any ideas as to why Firebird would feel so heavy compared to
    >>>Mozilla? Windowmanager choice matters not a whit.
    >>>
    >>>1.2ghz/256mb/mandrake9.1/fluxbox/gnome/KDE.

    >>
    >>Above data is for windows, though the ratio is about the same on my Red
    >>Hat 9 box.
    >>
    >>Lee

    >
    >
    > Thanks for responding to my rant :p
    >
    > 0.8 out Monday? Wahoo!
    >
    >


    As rants go, it was well considered and intelligent.

    There is a 2/06 nightly out, if you want a sneak preview.

    Lee
     
    Leonidas Jones, Feb 7, 2004
    #5
  6. Max

    dantu Guest

    Leonidas Jones wrote:

    > Max wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:50:26 +0000, Leonidas Jones etched in a large
    >> wheel
    >> of gouda with a butter knife:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Max wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> The hype says that Firebird is more system resource friendly than the
    >>>> Suite. I find this to be completely bogus in my observation. Now,
    >>>> before
    >>>> ya'll start to flame--I really love the design of *bird, and I use
    >>>> it and
    >>>> regular Mozilla every day, but I find myself coming back to the Suite
    >>>> because it's much snappier and more solid feeling.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I agree. The main attraction I find for FB is the customizabilty of
    >>> toolbars. If we could get that in the suite, I would probable bail
    >>> on FB as default browser.
    >>>
    >>>> Moz and Bird startup times are virtually identical from a "cold"
    >>>> start on
    >>>> my machine. Both are using the stock UI. Both render pages very
    >>>> nicely.
    >>>> both use between 30-60 megs of memory depending on tabs, java, and
    >>>> flash
    >>>> of course.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Much the same here.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Mozilla is much snappier. When I close a tab--it snaps closed. With
    >>>> Bird,
    >>>> it takes 1-2 seconds. Ctrl+t takes a bit to open a tab. Overall,
    >>>> there's
    >>>> an eerie lag with just about everything. I put up with it because I
    >>>> like
    >>>> the Bird's ability to selectively block Javascript (from the
    >>>> Washington
    >>>> Post ;))
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I don't notice that with FB. Indeed, I sometimes lose track of
    >>> which browser I'm using. I started using different themes jst to
    >>> make it obvious at a glance.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I understand that Firebird's at its 0.71 release and will become much
    >>>> yummier in the near future as the code gets tighter.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> 0.8 due out Monday.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> What I don't understand is all this misinformation about it being
    >>>> "lighter". I use Firebird when I want MORE features for crying out
    >>>> loud :O)
    >>>> Mozilla with its mail client open uses far less resources on my box
    >>>> than
    >>>> the two *birds combined + they play together much more nicely.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Well, FN/TB are integrated very nicely here, though it takes some
    >>> playing around with. You're probably right on the resource use issue.
    >>>
    >>> Size on disk is another interesxting point. FB/TB together take up
    >>> 41.4 megs, while the suite takes up 35.7. I suppoese in this day od
    >>> giant hard drives its not a huge consideration, but I find the stat
    >>> intriguing.
    >>>
    >>>> At any rate, any ideas as to why Firebird would feel so heavy
    >>>> compared to
    >>>> Mozilla? Windowmanager choice matters not a whit.
    >>>>
    >>>> 1.2ghz/256mb/mandrake9.1/fluxbox/gnome/KDE.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Above data is for windows, though the ratio is about the same on my
    >>> Red Hat 9 box.
    >>>
    >>> Lee

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks for responding to my rant :p
    >>
    >> 0.8 out Monday? Wahoo!
    >>
    >>

    >
    > As rants go, it was well considered and intelligent.
    >
    > There is a 2/06 nightly out, if you want a sneak preview.
    >
    > Lee


    Just a question here, is the OP using separate profiles for the suite
    and Firebird? Use of the same profile may be contributing to the
    difficulties encountered when using the bird
     
    dantu, Feb 7, 2004
    #6
  7. Max

    Max O. Guest

    dantu wrote:
    > Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >
    >> Max wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:50:26 +0000, Leonidas Jones etched in a large
    >>> wheel
    >>> of gouda with a butter knife:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Max wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> The hype says that Firebird is more system resource friendly than the
    >>>>> Suite. I find this to be completely bogus in my observation. Now,
    >>>>> before
    >>>>> ya'll start to flame--I really love the design of *bird, and I use
    >>>>> it and
    >>>>> regular Mozilla every day, but I find myself coming back to the Suite
    >>>>> because it's much snappier and more solid feeling.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I agree. The main attraction I find for FB is the customizabilty of
    >>>> toolbars. If we could get that in the suite, I would probable bail
    >>>> on FB as default browser.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Moz and Bird startup times are virtually identical from a "cold"
    >>>>> start on
    >>>>> my machine. Both are using the stock UI. Both render pages very
    >>>>> nicely.
    >>>>> both use between 30-60 megs of memory depending on tabs, java, and
    >>>>> flash
    >>>>> of course.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Much the same here.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Mozilla is much snappier. When I close a tab--it snaps closed. With
    >>>>> Bird,
    >>>>> it takes 1-2 seconds. Ctrl+t takes a bit to open a tab. Overall,
    >>>>> there's
    >>>>> an eerie lag with just about everything. I put up with it because I
    >>>>> like
    >>>>> the Bird's ability to selectively block Javascript (from the
    >>>>> Washington
    >>>>> Post ;))
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't notice that with FB. Indeed, I sometimes lose track of
    >>>> which browser I'm using. I started using different themes jst to
    >>>> make it obvious at a glance.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I understand that Firebird's at its 0.71 release and will become much
    >>>>> yummier in the near future as the code gets tighter.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> 0.8 due out Monday.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> What I don't understand is all this misinformation about it being
    >>>>> "lighter". I use Firebird when I want MORE features for crying out
    >>>>> loud :O)
    >>>>> Mozilla with its mail client open uses far less resources on my box
    >>>>> than
    >>>>> the two *birds combined + they play together much more nicely.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, FN/TB are integrated very nicely here, though it takes some
    >>>> playing around with. You're probably right on the resource use issue.
    >>>>
    >>>> Size on disk is another interesxting point. FB/TB together take up
    >>>> 41.4 megs, while the suite takes up 35.7. I suppoese in this day od
    >>>> giant hard drives its not a huge consideration, but I find the stat
    >>>> intriguing.
    >>>>
    >>>>> At any rate, any ideas as to why Firebird would feel so heavy
    >>>>> compared to
    >>>>> Mozilla? Windowmanager choice matters not a whit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1.2ghz/256mb/mandrake9.1/fluxbox/gnome/KDE.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Above data is for windows, though the ratio is about the same on my
    >>>> Red Hat 9 box.
    >>>>
    >>>> Lee
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for responding to my rant :p
    >>>
    >>> 0.8 out Monday? Wahoo!
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> As rants go, it was well considered and intelligent.
    >>
    >> There is a 2/06 nightly out, if you want a sneak preview.
    >>
    >> Lee

    >
    >
    > Just a question here, is the OP using separate profiles for the suite
    > and Firebird? Use of the same profile may be contributing to the
    > difficulties encountered when using the bird



    Yes, mozilla profile is in ~/.mozilla and firebird is in /.phoenix. All
    cache, cookies, etc. dumped, so nothing in the profile directory to slow
    it down.
     
    Max O., Feb 7, 2004
    #7
  8. Max

    Max Guest

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:07:38 +0000, Max O. etched in a large wheel of
    gouda with a butter knife:

    > dantu wrote:
    >> Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>> Max wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:50:26 +0000, Leonidas Jones etched in a large
    >>>> wheel
    >>>> of gouda with a butter knife:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Max wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The hype says that Firebird is more system resource friendly than the
    >>>>>> Suite. I find this to be completely bogus in my observation. Now,
    >>>>>> before
    >>>>>> ya'll start to flame--I really love the design of *bird, and I use
    >>>>>> it and
    >>>>>> regular Mozilla every day, but I find myself coming back to the Suite
    >>>>>> because it's much snappier and more solid feeling.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I agree. The main attraction I find for FB is the customizabilty of
    >>>>> toolbars. If we could get that in the suite, I would probable bail
    >>>>> on FB as default browser.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Moz and Bird startup times are virtually identical from a "cold"
    >>>>>> start on
    >>>>>> my machine. Both are using the stock UI. Both render pages very
    >>>>>> nicely.
    >>>>>> both use between 30-60 megs of memory depending on tabs, java, and
    >>>>>> flash
    >>>>>> of course.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Much the same here.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Mozilla is much snappier. When I close a tab--it snaps closed. With
    >>>>>> Bird,
    >>>>>> it takes 1-2 seconds. Ctrl+t takes a bit to open a tab. Overall,
    >>>>>> there's
    >>>>>> an eerie lag with just about everything. I put up with it because I
    >>>>>> like
    >>>>>> the Bird's ability to selectively block Javascript (from the
    >>>>>> Washington
    >>>>>> Post ;))
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't notice that with FB. Indeed, I sometimes lose track of
    >>>>> which browser I'm using. I started using different themes jst to
    >>>>> make it obvious at a glance.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I understand that Firebird's at its 0.71 release and will become much
    >>>>>> yummier in the near future as the code gets tighter.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 0.8 due out Monday.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> What I don't understand is all this misinformation about it being
    >>>>>> "lighter". I use Firebird when I want MORE features for crying out
    >>>>>> loud :O)
    >>>>>> Mozilla with its mail client open uses far less resources on my box
    >>>>>> than
    >>>>>> the two *birds combined + they play together much more nicely.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, FN/TB are integrated very nicely here, though it takes some
    >>>>> playing around with. You're probably right on the resource use issue.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Size on disk is another interesxting point. FB/TB together take up
    >>>>> 41.4 megs, while the suite takes up 35.7. I suppoese in this day od
    >>>>> giant hard drives its not a huge consideration, but I find the stat
    >>>>> intriguing.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> At any rate, any ideas as to why Firebird would feel so heavy
    >>>>>> compared to
    >>>>>> Mozilla? Windowmanager choice matters not a whit.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> 1.2ghz/256mb/mandrake9.1/fluxbox/gnome/KDE.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Above data is for windows, though the ratio is about the same on my
    >>>>> Red Hat 9 box.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Lee
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks for responding to my rant :p
    >>>>
    >>>> 0.8 out Monday? Wahoo!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> As rants go, it was well considered and intelligent.
    >>>
    >>> There is a 2/06 nightly out, if you want a sneak preview.
    >>>
    >>> Lee

    >>
    >>
    >> Just a question here, is the OP using separate profiles for the suite
    >> and Firebird? Use of the same profile may be contributing to the
    >> difficulties encountered when using the bird

    >
    >
    > Yes, mozilla profile is in ~/.mozilla and firebird is in /.phoenix. All
    > cache, cookies, etc. dumped, so nothing in the profile directory to slow
    > it down.


    Oh, and it's with or without different skins and extensions that this
    lagginess occurs.

    No big deal though, it's still very stable, which is much more important.
    I figure it'll be snappy-happy in a couple months or so.

    I waffle between evolution/firebird and the mozilla suite. A hard choice.
    I love the firebird features and especially bookmark handling, then I
    really like Mozilla's spam filtering and sensible mail client..

    If the mozilla calendar was fully mature (it's getting there) I'd ditch
    evolution in a second.

    --

    ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.

    ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
     
    Max, Feb 8, 2004
    #8
  9. Max

    Max O. Guest

    Max wrote:
    > On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:07:38 +0000, Max O. etched in a large wheel of
    > gouda with a butter knife:
    >
    >
    >>dantu wrote:
    >>
    >>>Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Max wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:50:26 +0000, Leonidas Jones etched in a large
    >>>>>wheel
    >>>>>of gouda with a butter knife:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Max wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>The hype says that Firebird is more system resource friendly than the
    >>>>>>>Suite. I find this to be completely bogus in my observation. Now,
    >>>>>>>before
    >>>>>>>ya'll start to flame--I really love the design of *bird, and I use
    >>>>>>>it and
    >>>>>>>regular Mozilla every day, but I find myself coming back to the Suite
    >>>>>>>because it's much snappier and more solid feeling.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I agree. The main attraction I find for FB is the customizabilty of
    >>>>>>toolbars. If we could get that in the suite, I would probable bail
    >>>>>>on FB as default browser.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Moz and Bird startup times are virtually identical from a "cold"
    >>>>>>>start on
    >>>>>>>my machine. Both are using the stock UI. Both render pages very
    >>>>>>>nicely.
    >>>>>>>both use between 30-60 megs of memory depending on tabs, java, and
    >>>>>>>flash
    >>>>>>>of course.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Much the same here.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Mozilla is much snappier. When I close a tab--it snaps closed. With
    >>>>>>>Bird,
    >>>>>>>it takes 1-2 seconds. Ctrl+t takes a bit to open a tab. Overall,
    >>>>>>>there's
    >>>>>>>an eerie lag with just about everything. I put up with it because I
    >>>>>>>like
    >>>>>>>the Bird's ability to selectively block Javascript (from the
    >>>>>>>Washington
    >>>>>>>Post ;))
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I don't notice that with FB. Indeed, I sometimes lose track of
    >>>>>>which browser I'm using. I started using different themes jst to
    >>>>>>make it obvious at a glance.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>I understand that Firebird's at its 0.71 release and will become much
    >>>>>>>yummier in the near future as the code gets tighter.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>0.8 due out Monday.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>What I don't understand is all this misinformation about it being
    >>>>>>>"lighter". I use Firebird when I want MORE features for crying out
    >>>>>>>loud :O)
    >>>>>>>Mozilla with its mail client open uses far less resources on my box
    >>>>>>>than
    >>>>>>>the two *birds combined + they play together much more nicely.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Well, FN/TB are integrated very nicely here, though it takes some
    >>>>>>playing around with. You're probably right on the resource use issue.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Size on disk is another interesxting point. FB/TB together take up
    >>>>>>41.4 megs, while the suite takes up 35.7. I suppoese in this day od
    >>>>>>giant hard drives its not a huge consideration, but I find the stat
    >>>>>>intriguing.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>At any rate, any ideas as to why Firebird would feel so heavy
    >>>>>>>compared to
    >>>>>>>Mozilla? Windowmanager choice matters not a whit.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>1.2ghz/256mb/mandrake9.1/fluxbox/gnome/KDE.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Above data is for windows, though the ratio is about the same on my
    >>>>>>Red Hat 9 box.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Lee
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Thanks for responding to my rant :p
    >>>>>
    >>>>>0.8 out Monday? Wahoo!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>As rants go, it was well considered and intelligent.
    >>>>
    >>>>There is a 2/06 nightly out, if you want a sneak preview.
    >>>>
    >>>>Lee
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Just a question here, is the OP using separate profiles for the suite
    >>>and Firebird? Use of the same profile may be contributing to the
    >>>difficulties encountered when using the bird

    >>
    >>
    >>Yes, mozilla profile is in ~/.mozilla and firebird is in /.phoenix. All
    >>cache, cookies, etc. dumped, so nothing in the profile directory to slow
    >>it down.

    >
    >
    > Oh, and it's with or without different skins and extensions that this
    > lagginess occurs.
    >
    > No big deal though, it's still very stable, which is much more important.
    > I figure it'll be snappy-happy in a couple months or so.
    >
    > I waffle between evolution/firebird and the mozilla suite. A hard choice.
    > I love the firebird features and especially bookmark handling, then I
    > really like Mozilla's spam filtering and sensible mail client..
    >
    > If the mozilla calendar was fully mature (it's getting there) I'd ditch
    > evolution in a second.
    >



    Firefox fixes just about everything :)
     
    Max O., Feb 10, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill Bolle

    Re: mozilla vs Firebird

    Bill Bolle, Jun 22, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,065
    Bill Bolle
    Jun 22, 2003
  2. Gunther

    Re: mozilla vs Firebird

    Gunther, Jun 22, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,910
    Irmen de Jong
    Jun 22, 2003
  3. rb
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,166
  4. dj tuchler
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,429
    Derald Martin
    Jul 15, 2003
  5. Mozilla Firebird ?

    , Aug 1, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    955
Loading...

Share This Page