SeaMonkey vs FF & IE7

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by poirot, Jul 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. poirot

    poirot Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    299
    I just read the previous thread about Firefox vs IE7 and wanted to post about SeaMonkey there,but i wouldn like to be accused of outtopicking ,so i concocted this title.

    I began taking an interest with SeaMonkey-(Browser only) when noticing Herbalist was using it in a Windows 98 box along with SSM: this combination is what i tried in my old W98 notebook which cannot anymore run an antivirus,apart from FProt DOS still for some months. They are ok together.

    I was running Firefox with NoScript with good results,but i was beginning to be a bit tired of having to lose time and clicking two or three times more when i was -most of the time- already protected by PowerShadow or shadowUser. So i d/l SeaMonkey for my old Compaq friend and i noticed the simplicity,effectiveness and speed of this browser.
    Up to now i didnt find any site or program not working with SM.
    Actually, i became so happy about it that i installed the new 1.1.3 version everywhere in place of Firefox.
    Surely i lost an important asset in NoScript ( less pain at every page..however) but i put things in Preferences so that cookies,Images,Popups and Scripts can only act in well know and faithfull sites.
    After such a long time with FF & NoScript is like coming out of a sickness....
    I had a similar joy when i uninstalled IE7 to go back to IE6,in spite of all the alarms; IE7 is giving to many problems without insuring any real added protection,and,moreover,i only need it when dealing with MS and very very few other times.
    If you have a low RAM pc you can measure how IE7 slows down the machine,not to mention the thousands added files.

    But i just wanted to know from you all what do you think of SeaMonkey as a browser only in relation to FF/IE ,if you noticed any security problems,as, apart from Herbalist,no one recently ever mentioned it here ,as far as i know.
     
  2. Itsy

    Itsy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Posts:
    3
    I have been using SM for a long time in parallel with FF. Mainly, the SM suite has a nice feature collection and a spiffy little WYSYWG web page editor. I us PrefBar to manage the settings .. so I can fiddle it on the fly depending if I'm surfing 'safe' or out in the wilds. I've not noticed significant problems with it, although it doesn't appear that much quicker than FF to switch completely.
     
  3. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    I used SeaMonkey for a while last year, and did notice that it seemed just a hair faster than Firefox. So I suspect that might still be the case. I also think that SM security would/should be pretty much the same as FF's. Don't really know how it compares security-wise to IE7, but I do know that it's much faster than IE7, which is pretty slow and sometimes even downright annoying in that respect...
     
  4. poirot

    poirot Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    299
    I agree Kerodo , a hair faster than FF and a rope faster than FF with NoScript.
    Even its writing program Composer which is embedded in SeaMonkey is worth a notice, given the fact it is faster than OpenOffice-which i use-to come up and be ready to write anything with utter simpliicity but with great efficiency.
    Only drawback is my DiskCleaner seems not to recognise the new arrival as i have set 0 days in history ,but when i open a login site next day i still find my username over there ,which means there was no proper cleaning....perhaps i will post at SM forum about this.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.