SillyDog701

[LARRYB]

Still using Netscape 7.0 and was going to upgrade to Sea moneky.

I have a internet business on the web and when I pulled down my site stats I noticed that the number 1 browser accesing my site was Microsoft IE and the #2 browser was Firefox, #3 Netscape compatible and seaMonkey was'nt on the list of 13 browsers.

Out of 1.8 million hits Firefox was 720,000 of them.

Maybe Sea Monkey was the Netscape compatible???

Is Firefox a better or easier browser than Sea Monkey?

larry

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)

[Fulvio]

I have both Firefox, and Seamonkey. Firefox is an excellent browser only, while Seamonkey is a suite like Netscape7.0, except that is new, and, thus updated.
Generally, nearly all websites will accept Firefox as an equal to IE.
For some reason, some websites do not accept Seamonkey. It is ignorance on their part, and not inability of SM in doing what FF can do. One should be able to use Seamonkey with the same profile used by Netscape ( with the warning that the same profile should not be used by both.) So, Seamonkey has mail, while Firefox is a standalone program, with a matching mail program, i.e. Thunderbird.
I don't know which list you are referring to, but Seamonkey is, definitely, Netscape compatible, or whatever that means.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080414 Firefox/2.0.0.14 Flock/1.1.2

[Ramona]

LarryB,

My personal opinion is that Firefox is an outstanding, stand alone browser. Thunderbird stand alone mail client being its companion.

Some Netscape 7.x users seem to want a suite, which includes Mail, and Compose, so that's why SeaMonkey is recommended, as it is so similar to Netscape 7.x. As Fulvio suggests, I believe you will find Firefox more compatible with web sites, and much faster than Netscape 7.x.

When you install both Thunderbird and Firefox, both applications automatically migrate your Netscape Profile data. It is a simple transition.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14

[richard mitnick]

Just wanting to add in here, I use FF and SM almost without thought as to what web sites will accept FF and not SM. Both have spent time as my default.

I use SM at home and at work, all sorts of sites, including financial, industrial, government, etc. Never had a site not work with SM.

So, if you like a suite, by all means got with SM. But know also that FF and TB will act together AS IF they are co-joined, just like in a suite.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14

[humpd]

In my opinion Firefox is a better choice. It is more configurable with add-ons (like the IE Tab) and is very stable. You can add mail button which will call up thunderbird or any mail client you want to use but the mail client is still separate. I think a separate mail client is better because a crash of SeaMonkey could result in a loss of mail as well. My wife uses SeaMonkey and likes it because of the included email client but I think she stays with SM because she does not like to change 'technologies' due to having to learn a new browser.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14

[richard mitnick]

Again, just adding in here,

I have IETab and Colorful Tabs in SM as well as in FF.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14

[Fulvio]

As long as the latest compatible version of Firefox is used, i.e. 2.0.014, it will have full use of all compatible add-ons. Generally, the same is true for Seamonkey 1.1.9. The only drawback with Seamonkey is that some websites do not recognize it. Seamonkey, mail included does not drain the resources of the computer, nearly as much as Firefox does, even under identical conditions of add-ons, and Tabs Seamonkey will use fewer that 50 MB, while I have not seen any Firefox (2.x), which does not use at least 70 MB. Adding Thunderbird, it will be a resource hog combination. However, this has not been a problem for me, and, I am sure for no one who has a fairly modern computer. I am using a Firefox4.0 nightly, which has no compatible add-on, with three tabs, and it uses nearly 51 MB, but, with no extra baggage, it sure is fast.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:2.0a1pre) Gecko/2008042903 Minefield/4.0a1pre

[LARRYB]

Thanks for the feedback.

I most likely would go with Sea Monkey due to being both a browser and email (like Netscape). I was not aware that firefox was only a browser.

Again, thanks

larry

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)

[richard mitnick]

Here I am again-

Larry-

You will not be unhappy with SeaMonkey, But rest assured Firefox is not ONLY a browser.
If you loaded FF and TBird, you would have all of the functionality you will have with SeaMonkey. It's not better, it's not worse. It's all opinion.

I stick with Firefox, because I need to use Outlook for my email and for a lot of database work. But I heartily support the continued growth and development of SeaMonkey. It is an outstanding product, deserving of great praise. The folks who stood up to be counted when Mozilla Suite, its immediate predecessor, was shoved off the pier (or, under the bus, in today's parlance) were forthright and earnest and they deserve badges of merit.

I am sure that you will be happy with your choice.

I wish all of those still on N7.X would come on over and smell the roses.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14

[Fulvio]

I was not aware that firefox was only a browser.

You are not the only one, but not as bad as the many people who thought that NS8.x and 9.x, all nineteen, or so, versions that because they carried the name Netscape, they had to be similar to the 7.x versions, which were suites of Browser, Mail, and Composer, at least.
However, perhaps to battle the Microsoft applications on more even terms, the standalones came out. Firefox to be equivalent to Internet Explorer, Thunderbird, to be equivalent to Outlook Express. And Komposer as a....composer. One needs three different applications to equate what one was doing. Seamonkey is a darned good application, and I hope that the small group of developers will carry on the old tradition with Seamonkey2.0, which blends a lot of Firefox, with the old ways. Seamonkey 2.0 has come out with nighlies, at least six months ago, and has not left the starting gate.
But, although our friend Richard is so used to have both Firefox and Thunderbird, they still are separate applications. But, it does not matter.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14

[LARRYB]

OK I'm on Sea Monkey. I like it it is alot like Netscape and not too much new stuff to learn.

I do have one question. Netscape didnt have a function to alphabetize the bookmarks.

Does SM have that function?

I tried looking in tool and bookmark manage and didnt see it. Am i overlooking it?

Larry

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9

[LARRYB]

OOPS, I found it under edit.

I love this already and only have used it for 30 mins.

Larry

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9

[iJohnE]

SeaMonkey is a great all-in-one application. It has very accessible features and is very simple to use. I have had FF and SM for a long time, not going to say whether I like either more, because I still use both. But, anyways best of luck to you.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9