Re: mozilla vs Firebird

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by pyotr filipivich, Aug 20, 2003.

  1. I know this is a late response, but I'm just now seeing this post. (Dang ISP
    change over.)

    And lo, it came about, that on Mon, 23 Jun 2003 08:26:00 -0400 in
    alt.fan.mozilla , Keith Bowes <> was inspired to utter:

    >dw wrote:
    >> I am sure this has been asked many times .... I currently use mozilla
    >> 1.3, and have no issues or problems with it. I have managed to convert
    >> the rest of my family to using it instead of IE.
    >>
    >> However I am temped by Firebird .... should I install that ??????
    >>

    >
    >Sure, give it a try, and get your own opinion. Some people like it
    >better than the Suite and some like the Suite better. Personally, I
    >like the Suite better; it starts up faster, the UI is better, and there
    >are more tools and configuration options built in. But it's a "to each
    >his own" situation. But even if you like both, the two can co-exist on
    >your computer (as they use different profiles).
    >


    I loaded Firebird, and in a head to head test with Mozilla 1.4, it lost in
    the one area _I_ consider important: how fast it loads the comics. Same comic,
    same connection: Mozilla showed it to me in ~29 seconds, Firebird in ~1:09.
    "Not good enough". Other pages seemed to be similarly delayed between the
    "clicking' and the displaying.
    I like Mozilla 1.4 if for no other reason than it isn't Microsloth.


    My two cents.

    --
    pyotr filipivich
    The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
    lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
    the first time!?"
     
    pyotr filipivich, Aug 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. pyotr filipivich

    Keith Bowes Guest

    pyotr filipivich wrote:
    >
    > I loaded Firebird, and in a head to head test with Mozilla 1.4, it lost in
    > the one area _I_ consider important: how fast it loads the comics. Same comic,
    > same connection: Mozilla showed it to me in ~29 seconds, Firebird in ~1:09.
    > "Not good enough". Other pages seemed to be similarly delayed between the
    > "clicking' and the displaying.


    That's interesting. I knew Firebird took longer to start up, but I
    hadn't timed page load times. Thanks.
     
    Keith Bowes, Aug 20, 2003
    #2
    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:
    2,069
    Bill Bolle
    Jun 22, 2003
  2. Gunther

    Re: mozilla vs Firebird

    Gunther, Jun 22, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,913
    Irmen de Jong
    Jun 22, 2003
  3. rb
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,168
  4. dj tuchler
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,435
    Derald Martin
    Jul 15, 2003
  5. Mozilla Firebird ?

    , Aug 1, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    957
Loading...

Share This Page