SillyDog701

[Edward]

With the "turbo" feature turned on, the same pages loaded in no faster than they did with the feature turned off.

The footer problem was unique to Linux. It would print the header and the web page, but the footers would be chopped off. I tried it with two different brands of printers as well as different Linux distributions. If I changed the font used for the footer to something unusually large, it would print maybe the first two rows of the dots of the footer line, nothing else.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090823 SeaMonkey/1.1.18

[Fulvio]

Some people do not want to make any change, and they were happy with
At this point, I would be willing to try anything new, as none of the existing browsers fit my needs.

you say that none of the existing browsers "fits (sic) your needs" exactly what does that mean?
Corrected to:"fits my wishes" . In other words, I would like a better performance.
I have no problem with the speed of page loading with any browser. I don't hang around with a stopwatch, and there is no significant difference in my mind.
Firefox is, painfully, slow in loading, but it carries more baggage than Google Chrome or Safari. The last two do not give me enough option to clutter my page, while Firefox gives me too much. As for Seamonkey, I tried the Turbo option, and I got mixed vibes, and I turned it off.
I quit trying to use Opera when I could not uninstall a previous version (v.9.52). I am told to insert a disk, where, allegedly, the version resides. No one at an Opera forum could steer me in the right direction.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2

[James]

Firefox is, painfully, slow in loading, but it carries more baggage than Google Chrome or Safari. The last two do not give me enough option to clutter my page, while Firefox gives me too much.

Now this is interesting, Fulvio, because what you're reporting is almost exactly the opposite of what I hear from Opera fanboys. They claim that Firefox is too barebones right out of the box and that the only way to make it as useful as Opera is to add dozens of extensions. I say... BULL. Firefox can be lean and quick and there is no reason to have it carrying more baggage than the other browsers "if" you're willing to trim it down to size. I never operate with more than five extensions and one skin. Furthermore, three tabs open at once suits me just fine. Firefox loads quickly on start-up, it loads pages quickly and it provides a great browsing experience. That's why I'm mystified as to what more could be expected. I don't mean to sound like a jerk... I'm just totally baffled. Ten years ago, any of us would have been bowled over with a browser like this. And yet, now we don't seem to ever be satisfied. It doesn't do this and it doesn't do that. I honestly think we've become a nation of whiners. We go into a shoe store and are overwhelmed by the array of "running shoes" before us and we complain that the choices are overwhelming. In a sense, it's the same with browsers. Ten-twelve years ago it was essentially...Netscape 3 or IE 3... period. And both worked just fine. All of today's browsers are great pieces of software engineering and do a very good job of letting us surf the net. The truth of the matter is... we're never satisfied and are constantly on the look for something that we think might be better instead of just enjoying what we have. It's a browser for crying out loud. The issue is what we do with the browser and not the browser itself. It's just a means to an end but I think a lot of folks are focusing on the means as though that were the main part of the internet experience. We can't see for the forest for the trees, as it were.

Rant over.

Firefox works for me. Windows Mail works just fine for me. Windows Media player works just fine. I don't need anything else and I don't particularly want to mess with what is working. That's probably why I let my curiosity over the new Opera offering cool and refused to install it. Why bother?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

[Fulvio]

I have a six-years old computer, with WinXP, 512 MB memory, and 2.8 Ghz processor. At this point Firefox3.5.2 with eight add-ons, and two tabs takes me about two minutes to load.
I did fiddle with the settings, and reduced the tabs, as well as add-ons with very little if any improvement. I like some baggage because it allows me to do a lot, after the program is fully loaded. Pages are loaded rapidly.
So, James, what's your computer like?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2

[James]

It's a Dell XPS 420, Core2 Quad, 2.5 GHz and 4 GB RAM.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

[Fulvio]

It's a Dell XPS 420, Core2 Quad, 2.5 GHz and 4 GB RAM.

If I had 4GB RAM, I would not complain. I know, I could upgrade, but why after all these years. I am not, really, complaining, knowing the limitations of my machine. Just stating facts.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2