Paul Bergsagel wrote :
Yes SeaMonkey does seem snappier and more responsive. I'm not sure if
the zippiness is due to the JavaScript improvements or the fresh
installation of SeaMonkey. I guess I will know which it is when
SeaMonkey is a few days old and now longer a fresh installation.
Anyways Kudos to the developers of v 2.6. Seems very good for the time I
have used it,
BTW my Mac OS 10.6.8.
It was that last comment that led to something else...
Have you guys seen this:
http://demos.hacks.mozilla.org/openweb/HWACCEL/
I get a score of 2 on SM, FF, on Camino
Google Chrome scores a 5
and iCab got a 14. Umm yeah, 14.
I know this is a SM group, and I use SM all day every day, but I keep so
many dumb websites going at the same time, I use FF for some TV sites
and Chrome for YouTube, because, well Google owns YouTube and makes
Chrome, and I was having crashing problems all the time on YouTube, when
I would rewind or ffd.
Is that test too outdated to mean anything, it was developed for FF4?
GW
Mac OS 10.6.8, at 2.53 GHZ and 64 Bit-mode
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
