seamonkey vs firefox

I wish sea monkey were available via apt-get and/or Synaptic. It would be much easier for newbees. I don't care for firefox so I use Mozilla Suite but would try sea monkey if it were that easily available.

Go here:

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

You can download a tar.gz file, then extract it and run the installer. It's a very easy process. However, I agree that it'd be nice to see it in the repositories. Drop the devs a line and ask nicely. Who knows? You're not the first to ask about Seamonkey.

dev@mepis.com

I found that email posted in another forum topic. I think it's the right one.

i have received two answers for the question whether Seamonkey is fatser than firefox?
The beloved members instead of answering my question they have diverted this thread to how to install seamonkey. That was not my question. Kindly read the question and answer appropriately.

many thanks!!

You should try them both and decide for yourself which 1 is faster. Speed is sometimes a question of how it feels, it also depends on your computer and your net connection. Such a simple question can only get you personal opinons as to how it feels to the user. I myself have only tried seamonkey in puppy linux and do not see any faster speed than firefox, but than again i always use firefox with my .mozilla profile which is already tricked out with all the extensions and modifications and tweaks with firefox, so i don't know how they would fair stock. Personally i love firefox more than any other browser, but if speed is what i'm after i use dillo, as it is fast, if i plan on downloading alot i use opera as it has the best downloader(in my opinion). Anyways i still consider firefox to be pretty fast(this page loaded in 1.921s according to fasterfox) and will always pick it for my main browser. I've dropped distro's just for not having firefox even though the distro may be good.

That's what happens to a forum thread, my friend. Sometimes it happens quickly, sometimes it takes a while, but it always happens. You'll be okay.

But, as to your actual question, I have always found that Mozilla/Seamonkey is faster than Firefox; in fact, I have always found it to be the fastest of all of the functional web browsers. By functional I mean that it interacts with most of the web content out there. Dillo is fast, but it's lost when it comes to interacting with web sites. If not for that, it's probably the one I'd be inclined to use.

However, I use Firefox because of the extensions, and with a couple of tweaks it's still rather speedy.

I run both, and to me it "feels" like FireFox is a little faster. Nevertheless, I prefer SeaMonkey because of its integrated mailreader.

Irv

I have tested myself and found that seamonkey is definitely faster than firefox.

Hi all,
I never tested for speed but I did write a short article
about the major differences between Firefox and Seamonkey.
http://www.htworkshop.com/freeinfo_firefox_vs_seamonkey.htm

---pete---

Thanks, High Tech Handyman!!

I hadn't heard of NOD32, I'm always looking for a good AV that doesn't kill the resources of a PC. While Symantec/Norton does a great job of catching stuff, it will make even the beefiest PC cry mercy and freeze to a grinding halt when it's performing a scan. That's what my company sells, but I hate giving people something that makes that new PC next to useless.

I have not tried sea monkey but found Swiftfox to run much faster on my AMD_64 box. I tried faster fox with firefox and it didn't seem to make firefox any faster.

Browsing Distrowatch today I see Seamonkey 1.0.4 has appeared.
So my guess is that you will be able to install it via Synaptic very soon.

Thanks for the heads up. I will be looking for it.

I too hope to see it added soon. Mozilla 1.7.12 was the first program I added after getting Mepis 6 installed. Come on Seamonkey!

So how do you folks compare the HTML editor in Seamonkey to Nvu? I guess they both came from the same source, it seems that the menus are laid out much the same. Are these things still basically clones of one another? Which is better? I think I like the layout in Seamonkey better, but I have been using Nvu to edit my website.

I too, would like Seamonkey in package manager.

I have been giving it a go for the past few days, and it does take up less CPU strength. I also like the itegrated mail client. Works great.

My only wish-list is for an extension manager. I commonly use a download manager other than the default one that comes with the browser (no resume, and fairly slow). I tried installing the add on, Flashgotv 0.5.96.060910 in Seamonkey, and it gave me an error that it was missing some components. Flashgot's webpage suggested using ExtensionManager 2.0 to uninstall Flashgot, but this software wouldn't work with Seamonkey.

And so, I deleted Seamonkey and will try it again in the future when implement an extension manager.

Still, no complaints about Firefox 1.5.07 and dial-up. I like the font layout, and the single click of a url in History, and it is still fast. I'm not that impatient LOL

Something like the below will be of help to some folks:

#! /bin/sh
# RUN THIS SCRIPT as root user from the /opt directory.  If you do not have a /opt directory, create one and download this script into it.
#
# Downloads and installs firefox and seamonkey to just about any Linux-based system.
#
# Comment out the lines that apply to any version that you DO NOT want to install
#
#
# Download Seamonkey 1.0.5 - United States English Release for Linux ######################################
wget -c -U Mozilla http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/releases/1.0.5/seamonkey-1.0.5.en-US.linux-i686.tar.gz
#
# Download Firefox 1.5.0.7 - United States English Release for Linux ###################################### 
wget -c -U Mozilla http://ftp-mozilla.netscape.com/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/1.5.0.7/linux-i686/en-US/firefox-1.5.0.7.tar.gz
#
# Download Firefox 2.0, Release Candidate 3 - United States English Release for Linux ###################################### 
wget -c -U Mozilla http://ftp-mozilla.netscape.com/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0rc3/linux-i686/en-US/firefox-2.0rc3.tar.gz
#
#
# Install Firefox 2rc3 ######################################
tar -xzvf firefox-2.0rc3.tar.gz; mv firefox firefox-2.0rc3
#
#
# Install Seamonkey 1.0.5 ######################################
tar -xzvf seamonkey-1.0.5.en-US.linux-i686.tar.gz
#
#
# Install Firefox 1.5.0.7 ######################################
tar -xzvf firefox-1.5.0.7.tar.gz
#
#
#
# Commands to run:
# 
#
# FIREFOX 1.5.0.7: /opt/firefox/firefox %u
# 
#
# FIREFOX 2.0rc3: /opt/firefox-2.0rc3/firefox %u
# 
#
# SEAMONKEY 1.0.5: /opt/seamonkey/seamonkey %u
#
#
# use the same commands to create desktop or KMenu launchers/shortcuts/links (whatever you want to call them).
#
# '%u' forces the application to refer to information stored in your /home/username directory, so you will have access to all extensions, plugins, bookmarks, etc. that you do now.
#

"You have two labs?"
"Each has its place. At the university, I try to please the Federal Government. Here, I negotiate with God."

In most cases, you will receive a subjective opinion, or an answer which is contingent upon factors that may not necessarily apply to your situation. Personally speaking, I see no difference between the two in detectable speed of operation.

The best answer to your question is the one you derive from first-hand experience. That is why I posted the above scrap of a script.

By installing the tarballs, you will not disturb your system configuration and, when you're done with either or both, simply delete the applicable directories.

"You have two labs?"
"Each has its place. At the university, I try to please the Federal Government. Here, I negotiate with God."