Is there a FAST mozilla based browser for old PC ?

[mikeb]

there is also an options window.

not for everything and especially the stuff mozilla have deemed unfashionable or whatever reasons they have for removing functionality

mike

[Moat]

there is also an options window.

not for everything and especially the stuff mozilla have deemed unfashionable or whatever reasons they have for removing functionality

mike

Agreed - and I've found, oddly, that some of the menu's options settings don't appear to "stick" through multiple sessions. Assuring those settings (and many others!) via about:config cures it.

Also agree with mikeb about getting dirty with about:config - I've found that a few minutes of tweaking there after a fresh install allows even the latest, bloated Firefoxes to run plenty fast and smooth on even my 10-ish year old hardware. Everybody's MMV, though...

Bob

[mikeb]

Yes settings that don't work...I managed to get form filling working again via about:config in ff 3.5/6 after they broke it...the config gui simply did not do what it said it would do. As for form history totally messed up in later versions since its now tied to history of pages which I really don't want. ...not worth the 100MB+ profile and are not bookmarks for saving pages you WANT to save? Not to mention those 100+ sqlite data bases contribute to slowdowns... what the hell were their devs snorting when they come up with that stuff? Its like tractors are great...so lets fill up the house with them darling

mike

[8Geee]

Any ideas as to what sql-db's can get tossed Using AdBlock Plus, Redirect Cleaner, Better Privacy, YouTube HTML5, and FireFTP here. libxul is ginormous at 41Mb/91Mb.

[gcmartin]

A 2006 PC with 1GB RAM is potentially a 64bit PC. If so, you may be slow because of RAM speed, drive speed, or USB controller speed.

Your ceiling in NOT the PUP browser, but the speed of the internet as the CPU and the other items mentioned is ions faster than your internet.

There is one BIG difference in some PUPs versus others...latency.

If your system is 64bit consider FATDOG. It has shortened pathlengths even with its larger complex programs and excellent performance while not being ISO "download heavy". Also, I did have a Simplicity ISO somewhere that, though a much larger ISO, it exhibited the best I had seen in low latency for internet use, as I remember.

Hope this outlook helps

[mikeb]

Any ideas as to what sql-db's can get tossed Using AdBlock Plus, Redirect Cleaner, Better Privacy, YouTube HTML5, and FireFTP here. libxul is ginormous at 41Mb/91Mb.

well thats the dilemma...you are at the mercy of the web browser designers...if they want to bloat then we have to go along with it.

Even mozilla themselves have admitted they have overused sqlite.

regardless of how 'modern' the hardware is ... excessive code and data storage is still inefficient....why not let fast machinery truly reap the benefits of its speed.
One of the main bottle necks at the moment is handling large databases stuffed with irrelevant data ... remember web servers have multi cpu and large amounts of ram as the databases are the main load factor.

mike

Also amuses me that there are web browsers larger than the operating systems I use BEFORE the data harvesting begins.

[Colonel Panic]

Any ideas as to what sql-db's can get tossed Using AdBlock Plus, Redirect Cleaner, Better Privacy, YouTube HTML5, and FireFTP here. libxul is ginormous at 41Mb/91Mb.

well thats the dilemma...you are at the mercy of the web browser designers...if they want to bloat then we have to go along with it.

Even mozilla themselves have admitted they have overused sqlite.

regardless of how 'modern' the hardware is ... excessive code and data storage is still inefficient....why not let fast machinery truly reap the benefits of its speed.
One of the main bottle necks at the moment is handling large databases stuffed with irrelevant data ... remember web servers have multi cpu and large amounts of ram as the databases are the main load factor.

mike

Also amuses me that there are web browsers larger than the operating systems I use BEFORE the data harvesting begins.

Agreed, Mike, but also I think the web browser designers are themselves at the mercy of our changing expectations of what we want from our browsers.

Just as an example; back when I first went online in 1997 (as part of a fairly basic computer course I was doing), the browser we used was Netscape 2 on top of Windows 95, and there was no Flash in those days for playing videos or multimedia clips - even if there had been, the internet connection we were using was too slow to have made it anything other than painful.

Did we mind? Not at all! Even being able to visit the BBC News webpage and see a page of news, with pictures and text, on a computer screen was a great and much appreciated novelty. You'd probably get the same effect now by browsing in Dillo or Netsurf.

Times change, and so does software and what we expect from it. Similarly, it's hard to believe now that Microsoft Office 97, and Word in particular, was criticised as bloatware when it came out; it's almost nimble now by comparison with Office 2010.

[mikeb]

Agreed, Mike, but also I think the web browser designers are themselves at the mercy of our changing expectations of what we want from our browsers.

You suggest they actually listen to user... try getting anyone to take notice at the mozilla site...forget it. Its a geek paradise and sod the common user. Or at least a very warped view of what joe public 'wants'.

Firefox 3.6 does everything ..actually so does 1.5 that the latest firefox does...apart from handling web gimmics...thats it...so what is the tripling of size for... whats so great about a 10MB database when a 200K text file does the same job? And no its NOT faster...opera stuck with text files and it was known as the fastest on the web short of going dillo style so more geek bull going on there.
Its not about users demanding weird and wonderful features..they just accept what is there unless they have geekness issues its about devs changing methods for the sheer hell of it with little thought to the consequences...it might be more fun for them but not for us.
If I updated I would lose useful features, gain pointless ones... render pages a bit better and run more slowly or not at all if incompatible...whats the point?

I religiously updated firefox for years..each release was BETTER.... then something changed....new devs probably..those who started the project are not necessarily the ones steering it now.
And those meaningless version numbers... why play the google chrome game...thats not exactly 'professional' . The seamonkey team at least still have a shred of common sense lingering in there.

Its not big and its not clever

mike

[mikeb]

Ah you say... webm/html5

Ok a method of displaying media that semi controlled by google instead of Adobe that is worse than flash in terms of playback unless you have the right hardware. It then can display hi definition video which surprisingly enough my pentium 3's can do with xvid . Seems like pushing formats that force the purchase of new hardware to DO THE SAME THING thats all.

What the point apart from some companies financial gain? Not like that level of compression is essential with broadband and huge drives.

mike

[Colonel Panic]

Agreed, Mike, but also I think the web browser designers are themselves at the mercy of our changing expectations of what we want from our browsers.

You suggest they actually listen to user... try getting anyone to take notice at the mozilla site...forget it. Its a geek paradise and sod the common user. Or at least a very warped view of what joe public 'wants'.

Firefox 3.6 does everything ..actually so does 1.5 that the latest firefox does...apart from handling web gimmics...thats it...so what is the tripling of size for... whats so great about a 10MB database when a 200K text file does the same job? And no its NOT faster...opera stuck with text files and it was known as the fastest on the web short of going dillo style so more geek bull going on there.
Its not about users demanding weird and wonderful features..they just accept what is there unless they have geekness issues its about devs changing methods for the sheer hell of it with little thought to the consequences...it might be more fun for them but not for us.
If I updated I would lose useful features, gain pointless ones... render pages a bit better and run more slowly or not at all if incompatible...whats the point?

I religiously updated firefox for years..each release was BETTER.... then something changed....new devs probably..those who started the project are not necessarily the ones steering it now.
And those meaningless version numbers... why play the google chrome game...thats not exactly 'professional' . The seamonkey team at least still have a shred of common sense lingering in there.

Its not big and its not clever

mike

I wish I could agree Mike, but I've just booted up 3.6.28 and it's fairer to say it does most things that later Firefoxes can do. It wouldn't play a Youtube video when I tried one, for example, and I was limited to the basic HTML version of GMail because the browser wouldn't load the "standard view" one. That makes a difference when, for example, you want to mass delete all the spam on a page (easy in standard view but not in basic HTML where you first have to select every spam message individually).

I'm not competent to comment on the rest of what you say about Firefox except that you're probably right about a 10 MB database being unnecessary bloatware when a 200K textfile does the same job.

BTW, I've still got a copy of the last Linux version of Opera, 12.16, and use it a lot; it does almost everything Firefox can do.

[sheldonisaac]

BTW, I've still got a copy of the last Linux version of Opera, 12.16, and use it a lot; it does almost everything Firefox can do.

That's what I use most of the time.

Thanks,
Sheldon

[Colonel Panic]

BTW, I've still got a copy of the last Linux version of Opera, 12.16, and use it a lot; it does almost everything Firefox can do.

That's what I use most of the time.

Thanks,
Sheldon

Yeah, and Opera 12.17 (for Windows) runs well in Wine too. There are unfortunately one or two sites I use and which Opera can't manage, however, which is why I still find I have to use a Mozilla-based browser such as Firefox or Seamonkey.

[mikeb]

It wouldn't play a Youtube video when I tried one, for example, and I was limited to the basic HTML version of GMail because the browser wouldn't load the "standard view" one.

I can use you tube with firefox 1.5 and flash 9... so something gone wrong there.

I use firefox 3.6 and flash 10.0.15 on you tube and so does the family... no special tweaks. We also use a mp4 downloader add on . Some videos don't like the older flash...its the adverts or drm I assume they want to push.

As for gmail..of course its won't its built to push chromium... google docs is the same...as mentioned compaines use the web to push their products and I believe google have something called android. Google also own you tube so same applies.... works soo well on android but you try getting flash working ok on the same system...well why would you want to use the rest of the web. Google are simply doing what Microsoft did ...trying to own the web...they just do a better job of it.
Corporate internet controls is an ongong problem... we shall see the outcome at some point...will it become a new form of TV station or remain a free and open method of information exchange.

As for the browsers I accept they have to keep up with web crap with the renderer...its the rest of the crud that spoils it...seamonkey seems better in that respect but its still riddled with those sqlite databases and matching LOSS of features. As I said I was always the first to update then firefox 4 arrived.....

mike

[mikeb]

Sorry but I must add that I had a gmail account (and you tube before they took over) and I was disgusted by google's complete disregard for privacy and security. They are also only champions of their own personal gain and also quite cheerfully use open source to profit from.

They have been in court of this subject too.... if you like your privacy please do consider alternatives.

Mike

[bark_bark_bark]

Sorry but I must add that I had a gmail account (and you tube before they took over) and I was disgusted by google's complete disregard for privacy and security. They are also only champions of their own personal gain and also quite cheerfully use open source to profit from.

They have been in court of this subject too.... if you like your privacy please do consider alternatives.

Mike

I've tried (many times) telling my brother that google is evil and that they make make money collecting your information and he never gets it. He is way too brainwashed and that there is no hope for him to have his eyes open to reality.

[Colonel Panic]

Some fair points there Mike (and bark bark bark too). I have to admit I hadn't thought of the connection between Google Mail and Chrome, but it's clear once you point it out.

I might try Flash 10.0.15 in Firefox 3 and see if I have any luck with it. The problem I was getting before was that Firefox was showing the video in blocked form with an 'f' superimposed on it, but wouldn't start when I clicked on the 'f' as it is supposed to.

Yes, I know gmail has problems. I use a *paid for version of Fastmail for correspondence with friends and family, but at the moment I've got gmail for all my less personal or more ephemeral messages. I might try and see if there's another and better free e-mail service to substitute for gmail.

Best,

CP .

* $10 a year including 100MB file storage, which is far more than I need; I think it's worth it.

[mikeb]

Hmm so flashblock operating there... but fails after clicking..

I have used flash 10.3.xxx as well...does not stream to ram but appears to play all.

I wonder if there is some flash player requirement problem otherwise but thats a long shot.

gmx.com ....good free webmail...can do pop and Imap too...no catches after several years of use. They even throw in a bit of web storage.

sorry about the rant...bit of a sore point with google.

mike

[Colonel Panic]

Hmm so flashblock operating there... but fails after clicking..

I have used flash 10.3.xxx as well...does not stream to ram but appears to play all.

I wonder if there is some flash player requirement problem otherwise but thats a long shot.

gmx.com ....good free webmail...can do pop and Imap too...no catches after several years of use. They even throw in a bit of web storage.

sorry about the rant...bit of a sore point with google.

mike

Thanks for the advice Mike - no problem about the "rant." Google's business practices get up a lot of people's noses these days; Bill Gates has even said that Google is the company which most reminds him of Microsoft in their approach to business.

I've just had a look at the GMX website and the e-mail package looks good, with one slight reservation; they say they may provide you with software to use on your computer. Is this software obligatory or optional? (I have not very fond memories of AOL and their infamous "coasters" in the 90s and early 00s.)

Best,

CP .

[8Geee]

gmx has succumbed to "packaging". I wouldn't want to accept anything else than the target app. Yah, the can o'worms I opened is in fact why I asked if there was some way to trim the sql-bloat. I note that my offerings here with FF27 don't seem to inflate much at all. Save file and gdmap seem to indicate some size-stability. I was wondering if any sql db in FF was readily trimmed/removed.

I've tried to stay away from M$ - G# and Flash, yet security flaws means that nothing is stable over time. openssl just went 1.0.1k with two nasties closed. Funny, I used to think APPle wanted their own internet. But it looks like Ethernet connections are too secure for ANY of the big three, as evidenced by the lack-a-jack for the RJ-45 connector. Hardwire a smartphone to a router/modem/firewall... perish the thought!

[Colonel Panic]

GMX has got a pretty good review in this article;

http://free-email-services-review.topte ... eview.html

The only downsides (apart from its somewhat retro interface, for those who consider that important) seem to be its lack of an RSS feed or conversation view. but I don't use those anyway.