SeaMonkey versus Firefox

[James]

I know the two programs are completely different in terms of a suite (aka: Netscape/Mozilla) versus a stand-alone. Are the two engines that drive the programs different? I'm finding that increasingly Firefox is taking longer to load and after a period of time with three or more tabs open becomes more sluggish. Would there be any appreciable difference with SeaMonkey?

Also... will SM import my bookmarks from FF? Just curious. Don't know really whether I want to go in the direction of a suite but it might be worth giving it a try.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0)

[Fulvio]

The question should be: Which engine is the latest final version of Seamonkey based on?
Seamonkey 2.0.10 is based on 1.9.1.15, the same engine as Firefox 3.5.15, so it is behind the present 3.6.12 (engine is 1.9.2.12). If FF3.5.x was behaving, for you, then SM should, also, behave. Because of the behavior, I believe that the Mail portion is based on TB2.x, and not on 3.x, which I, barely, tolerate.
As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to have more than two tabs open with Firefox, but, still, FF3.6.x takes more juice than 3.5.x. I don't know about importing bookmarks, as I have had both Seamonkey and Firefox, from why back.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.17pre) Gecko/20101205 Shiretoko/3.5.17pre

[James]

Thanks for the information, Fulvio. I hadn't considered it from that perspective.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12

[Edward]

I think the current engine version that SM uses, has always been earlier than the current engine that Firefox uses. SM 2.0.11 uses 1.9.1.16.

I do not know the reasons for this.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101123 SeaMonkey/2.0.11

[Fulvio]

The build identifier of the the present SM 2.0.11 is: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101123 SeaMonkey/2.0.11.
And Firefox 3.6.13 is: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13.
Note the differences: 1.9.1.16 for Seamonkey, and 1.9.2.13 for Firefox. Consequently the SM engine is esrlier than Firefox.
The source code web page says:

Those doing active development on Thunderbird 3.0/SeaMonkey 2.0/Sunbird 1.0/Firefox 3.5/Mozilla 1.9.1 can check out the latest source using Mercurial. This method includes all the code for the applications mentioned, so you can work on Firefox 3.5 development, and still build Thunderbird, SeaMonkey or Sunbird as well.

. Thus the reason for the earlier engine.
How does SM Mail fit? It is, definitely not based on TB 3.1, which the same source code as Firefox 3.6.13.
I have been unable to come up with a build identifier for TB2.0.0.24, and 3.5.16 has rv: 1.9.16, the same as SM 2.0.11.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

[richard mitnick]

Whatever the engines, for me, SM works better when it just comes to simple browsing. But most of my usage these days supports my two blogs, listed below. There are certain aspects in which SM comes up short. I need to use many URL's, so very often new bookmarks; many images, and the like. SM is O.K. for the URL's, but it fails for the images. If I search in Google on a name, and then click on images, in FF I get the images. In SM, I get blank rectangles which should be the images. Also, in FF, I can just use "copy image location" in the context menu. In SM, I need to go to properties and extract the link.

My default for the musicsprings blog is FF. For sciencesprings it is SM, default on one machine, but I use it on all five machines. I needed a second browser default because of the way Twitter and Facebook, linked to my blogs, are organized. So, if I am working in sciencesprings, and I need images, I need to go to FF to see them to pick out what I wan t to use.

If SM worked with images as well as FF, I would be a lot better off.

I am greatly enamored of SM. I think the SM Council is doing great work in the face of great adversity. I do believe that Mozilla purposely keeps some good things in FF without allowing them into SM. In closing tabs, xtab which works in FF does not work in the current SM build. There is one big X at the right side which I need to use. So, you know, it is not totally crippled. FF has a much better utility for storing new bookmarks. In FF, you get a dialogue box and can just re-named and pick the folder right there. In SM, any new bookmark just saves at the bottom, you need two steps to first rename it and then second move it to its proper folder. Again, not crippling, but a pain in the neck.

SM has none of the panache of FF. I, like many of you, also have at my disposal IE8, Chrome, and Safari. I prefer SM to any of these last three. In IE8, to get to cookies, saved passwords, etc., there is simply too much drilling. Safari is, typical of Apple, pretty much use it the way you get it. Chrome, adequate as a browser, feels like a tin toy.

Egad!! 'nuff said.

Happy New Year to all. We had over 30" of snow in the last storm. I was snowshoeing in a local state park. I stuck my pole in and the snow measured 110cm. I broke a snow shoe about a mile from the auto. Not fun in 30" of snow.

I hope some of you folks will check out my sciencesprings blog. And, hey, it's coming on a new year, How about making a resolution to becoming a citizen scientist? Check out BOINC and WCG, links below.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13 ImageShackToolbar/5.2.4 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C)

[Fulvio]

I got this in my SM2.0.11, by selecting Copy, and then Paste. Do this say that you can't see images in SM?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0b8) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0b8

[richard mitnick]

Fulvio, that is a photo of the Atlas detector in the LHC at CERN. Cool.

I can get images from specific web sites, by right clicking on the image and getting its "Image Properties Location". That is not a problem.

But, if I go to Google and search on something, let us just say "CMS", another LHC collaboration, and use the Image utility, in FF I will get a ton of images. In SM I will get a ton of blanks.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13 ImageShackToolbar/5.2.4 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C)

[richard mitnick]

Fulvio- Here is an example of what happens in SeaMonkey, followed by the same shot in Firefox

[url][URL=http://img441.imageshack.us/i/smgoogleimages.jpg/][/url]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/url]

[url][URL=http://img521.imageshack.us/i/scr1343338.jpg/][/url]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/url]

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13 ImageShackToolbar/5.2.4 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C)

[DJGM]

The way I see it ...even though the version of the Gecko engine in the latest version of SeaMonkey,
is slightly behind the version the Gecko built into the latest Firefox, in the vast majority of cases,
you really won't notice much difference in page rendering on either browser, if any.

I certainly don't really notice any rendering differences at all between SM2.0.x and Ffx 3.6.x.

Back when SeaMonkey was still at version 1.1.x, using a considerably older version of Gecko than
the current Firefox of the time, there were some noticeable differences, mainly with font sizes.
The fonts looked a bit biggerin SeaMonkey than they did with Firefox. Nowadays, that's not
an issue ... fonts look exactly the same size between both browsers.

Like I said before ... the rendering differences between SM and Ffx are, at best, negligible.

The only major issue, is the faulty browser ID checkers that some sites use. Most of these faulty
checkers (or sniffers) are setup to look for "Firefox" in the browser useragent string, when they
should be looking for "Gecko" instead. You could get a website that works perfectly well with
the latest (or recent) Firefox version, but may block access from SeaMonkey, even though
they're both pretty much exactly the same browser "under the hood" . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101123 SeaMonkey/2.0.10 Firefox/3.5.x

[Edward]

I am currently testing a contributed build/release candidate of SeaMonkey 2.0.12 for x86_64 Linux. It uses Gecko 1.9.1.17.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.17) Gecko/20110123 SeaMonkey/2.0.12

[Fulvio]

Fulvio- Here is an example of what happens in SeaMonkey, followed by the same shot in Firefox

[url][URL=http://img441.imageshack.us/i/smgoogleimages.jpg/][/url]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/url]

[url][URL=http://img521.imageshack.us/i/scr1343338.jpg/][/url]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/url]

>>RSM

Richard,
could you enter some proper link? Also, is it possible to see them without registering? I cannot anything like you show. Unless you are comparing thisagainst this. I can't see any difference between SM 2.0.11 and FF 3.6.3.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

[James]

I can't see any difference between SM 2.0.11 and FF 3.6.3.

Hmmm... I'm seeing the differences Richard mentioned, Fulvio. He says that "in FF I will get a ton of images. In SM I will get a ton of blanks." Surely you can see the blanks and the images are different in either browser. Right?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.16 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/10.0.634.0 Safari/534.16

[richard mitnick]

Fulvio-

Yes, your two images are the correct images, the SM page is full of blanks, and the FF page has the actual images.

And, thank you,James.

I would sure love a fix for the images in SM, I use this stuff every day in the Music and and Science blogs.

>>RSM
(Go Steelers)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13 ImageShackToolbar/5.2.4 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C)

[James]

Go Steelers? Richard... for shame!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.16 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/10.0.634.0 Safari/534.16