OS2 World.Com Forum

Subject  :  Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  RadarCat
Date  :  30 Jan, 2005 on 13:03

Hi,

I was just wondering what everybodys favorite browser is for
the various versions of OS/2 Warp you have used and why it is your favorite.

Thank you !!

RadarCat, Webmaster
http://www.os2warplinks.com


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Kim
Date  :  30 Jan, 2005 on 13:37
Well, we have earlier had a poll asking what browser people where using, but I think that now around two years ago and lots have happened since then. Be my quest to suggest and set up a poll at following url:

http://scripts.os2world.com/stuffed/index.cgi?pkg=poll&action=suggest_poll

/Kim


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  SandBird
Date  :  26 Jul, 2005 on 17:33
FireFox on any OS.

Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  BigWarpGuy
Date  :  26 Jul, 2005 on 17:57
I use Mozilla on my computers; no matter what OS it uses.

---
BigWarpGuy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OS/2-eCS.org
Director of Markeing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Martin
Date  :  26 Jul, 2005 on 23:26
My favorite one is Mozilla.

Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  davidfor
Date  :  27 Jul, 2005 on 02:49
Firefox on OS/2, Win2000, WinXP and Win 98.

---
David

Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  abwillis abwillis@comcast.net
Date  :  27 Jul, 2005 on 04:15
Seamonkey on OS/2, Firefox on windows (if I used it more there then it would probably be Seamonkey too).

Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Sassy
Date  :  27 Jul, 2005 on 13:46
Deer Park WPS Alpha2

Deer Park WPS 1.0+
Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050716 Firefox/1.0+

and IBM Web Browser 2.0.5
https://testcase.boulder.ibm.com/


Subject  :  Seamonkey on OS/2?
Author  :  BigWarpGuy
Date  :  27 Jul, 2005 on 20:34
I have never heard of Seamonkey. Do you have a link to the site where it is?

---
BigWarpGuy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OS/2-eCS.org
Director of Markeing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Ben Dragon
Date  :  28 Jul, 2005 on 04:01
Seamonkey is the name used for the Mozilla project, that's the one we all know and love..

The Mozilla that's being produced by Rick Walsh, (with the WPS enhancements), is referred to as the Deer Park distribution.


---


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  davidfor
Date  :  29 Jul, 2005 on 04:20

Ben Dragon (28 Jul, 2005 04:01):
Seamonkey is the name used for the Mozilla project, that's the one we all know and love..

That's not completely correct. The Mozilla Organisation has decided not to continue producing the Mozilla Suite. They will continue developing the infrastructure and the individual applications (Firefox, Thunderbird etc). When this was announced, another group was formed to continue the suite. They had to name this something different, and chose "SeaMonkey" as that was the codename used for the suite for a while. They are doing this with the full support of the Mozilla Organization.



The Mozilla that's being produced by Rick Walsh, (with the WPS enhancements), is referred to as the Deer Park distribution.

Again, not completely correct. Deerpark is the next version of Firefox. It will be Firefox V1.5. Rick Walsh is using this codebase to improve the integration of Firefox with the WPS. But, he has done at least one build of the Mozilla Suite with these enhancements. He is intending that the changes he makes will be usable by all Mozilla based products.

---
David


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Sebadoh sys3175@optonline.net
Date  :  29 Jul, 2005 on 05:32

abwillis (27 Jul, 2005 04:15):
Seamonkey on OS/2, Firefox on windows (if I used it more there then it would probably be Seamonkey too).

The seamonkey build on OS/2 doesn't even work with ft2lib. Anyway.. I use firefox 1.06 w/ thunderbird 1.06 because they can run concurently.. if only firefox 1.06 came with an installer in OS/2 to make it the default desktop browers.. then thunderbird would load links in firefox.


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Ben Dragon
Date  :  29 Jul, 2005 on 06:06
I use Firefox and Thunderbird 1.06 and links in TB load in FF.

All you have to do is to set the default OS/2 browser to FF and presto magico... it's done.

You can do this two ways. Download the program from hobbes that sets the default Inet apps in a convenient interface, (ConfigApps), or simply open a URL object and change the reference to reflect the location of Firefox.

---


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  osw
Date  :  03 Aug, 2005 on 12:14
SeaMonkey does work with ft2lib on my system pretty well , and it is even more stable than official relases 1.7.8... it is also bit faster

So I see no point in bother with firefox which is obviously crippled mozilla so it can be used by typical brainless windows eaters...

btw. ft2lib needs ipluginw.dll to work....
it also needs some tuning with regedit2 as executable now is seamonkey.exe rather than mozilla.exe

greetings/2


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Ben Dragon
Date  :  03 Aug, 2005 on 17:08

osw (03 Aug, 2005 12:14):
So I see no point in bother with firefox which is obviously crippled mozilla so it can be used by typical brainless windows eaters...



Fortunately, it isn't quite as simple as that.

Firefox is a stand-alone browser whereas Mozilla is a full suite, (browser plus E-mail client plus News Reader - and before you say it, I know only the browser part of Mozilla can be installed if desired... nevertheless, it remains a suite).

Thus, Firefoxs overhead is less and the efficiency in system resources is enhanced by its use in comparison.

While Firefox doesn't have all the features of Mozilla, the loss of those few does not overshadow the returns WRT the resources gained.

Ergo: insulting the users of Firefox, (with a direct comparison to "brainless windows eaters", is simply wrong.

Other than in mentioning it I will not speak on the fact that this forum is patronized by OS/2 users and not the M$ acolytes.

... and many of those patrons use Firefox.

Personally, I use both depending on which OS/2/eCS system I'm using at the moment.



Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  osw
Date  :  07 Aug, 2005 on 11:49
Mea Culpa....
I think that my previous comment was not right... and of course it was not about to offend no os2 user, but rather those who sudden switch from ie to firefox with no reason of full mozilla suite existence... those who previously were ignoring mozilla till it reshaped into ie-like browser and yet claiming to be true browser experts...
I started with mozilla 0.9.6... so new firefox incarnations seems to me crippled, instead I'm looking forward for to have seamonkey for os2 cairo engine powered. When it comes to deeper digging into html sources or hacking some mmedia links with drag and drop - mozilla is still number one to me.
greetings/2

Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Glenn
Date  :  07 Aug, 2005 on 15:28
What do you mean when you say: "I started with mozilla 0.9.6... so new firefox incarnations seems to me crippled"

I have been a Mozilla browser user since Netcape 1.x. I think I can safely say I'm not one of "those who previously were ignoring mozilla till it reshaped into ie-like browser" But I take offense to this. Those IE lovers which moved to firefox have saved Mozilla. They have brought interest back into the browser war which has brought in a bunch of programers which has accelarated development on all of the Mozilla projects.

I started using Firebird in the Phoenix(v0.4) days simply because tabbed browsing and UI customization worked better straight from the start. Mozilla has sucked since the netscape 4.x days. I too am looking forward to "seamonkey for os2 cairo engine powered" but if it wasn't for Firefox, you would be waiting a LONG time for it.


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Ben Dragon
Date  :  07 Aug, 2005 on 22:22

osw (07 Aug, 2005 11:49):
Mea Culpa....
I think that my previous comment was not right... and of course it was not about to offend no os2 user,
Uh, uh...

No way!

I'm not buying it.

You meant to trash all us poor Firefox users! *sniffs*

How cruel!

Heh, heh, heh, sorry. I am quite sure that you did not mean to step on any eCS/OS/2-ers toes , but I just could not resist a little jibe.

I am sure that you just meant to smash Windows users a bit while stating your opinion regarding some missing features in Firefox WRT Mozilla... so... you will be allowed to live. {/off humour}

On a more productive note, what features do you particularly miss in Firefox?

---


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Isaac atomic_frogii@yahoo.ca
Date  :  08 Aug, 2005 on 09:40

Ben Dragon (03 Aug, 2005 22:53):

osw (03 Aug, 2005 12:14):
So I see no point in bother with firefox which is obviously crippled mozilla so it can be used by typical brainless windows eaters...



Fortunately, it isn't quite as simple as that.

Firefox is a stand-alone browser whereas Mozilla is a full suite, (browser plus E-mail client plus News Reader - and before you say it, I know only the browser part of Mozilla can be installed if desired... nevertheless, it remains a suite).

Thus, Firefoxs overhead is less and the efficiency in system resources is enhanced by its use in comparison.

While Firefox doesn't have all the features of Mozilla, the loss of those few does not overshadow the returns WRT the resources gained.


I would dispute that. Have you looked at the resources used? (I used Theseus)
On OS/2 (Warp 4.52 with FP5). I hit the exact same 4 web sites in sequence. Yahoo, GoogleNews, Slashdot, Car and Driver.
Firefox weights in with a memory footprint of over 17MB
Mozilla, the suite, chomps up just over 19MB.

If I run the same test under WindowsXP Pro (as shown by the Task Manager), Firefox typically comes in with the _same_ memory useage as Mozilla suite.

If I now start using Thunderbird in addition, the total memory useage ballons in comparison to Mozilla.

I also checked out the CPU usage. When idle, they're about the same. I hit Slashdot for a test. Mozilla peaked at ~52% and soon died down. Firefox peaked at ~70% and then dropped down to ~60% where it stayed for quite a while. Both times there were flashing/animated banners.

The results have been pretty consistent from Firefox 1.0 up to the latest 1.06 (in fact 1.06 is the first to have shown any savings at all!). The supposed "reduced resource requirement" is so minimal as to be not worth using Firefox over the Mozilla suite, especially if one has to use e-mail as well. The only savings is disk space, by a few 10's of MB. Nothing to shout about.

To be fair, Firefox does _feel_ faster during use. That's about it.
I'll switch when Firefox is really lighter.


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  zizban zizban@adelphia.net
Date  :  08 Aug, 2005 on 15:26
Netscape 4.61. Then again, OS/2 is on my second computer, so i don't use it a lot.

Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Ben Dragon
Date  :  08 Aug, 2005 on 16:39

Isaac (08 Aug, 2005 09:40):
I would dispute that. Have you looked at the resources used? (I used Theseus)
On OS/2 (Warp 4.52 with FP5). I hit the exact same 4 web sites in sequence. Yahoo, GoogleNews, Slashdot, Car and Driver.
Firefox weights in with a memory footprint of over 17MB
Mozilla, the suite, chomps up just over 19MB.

If I run the same test under WindowsXP Pro (as shown by the Task Manager), Firefox typically comes in with the _same_ memory useage as Mozilla suite.

If I now start using Thunderbird in addition, the total memory useage ballons in comparison to Mozilla.

To be fair, Firefox does _feel_ faster during use. That's about it.
I'll switch when Firefox is really lighter.


I timed Firefox opening fresh to full load of my homepage; 5s
I timed Mozilla opening and loading my homepage; 6s easily.

RAM available before loading either. 374,380
After Firefox is loaded; 340,112
After Mozilla is loaded; 336,316

While far from extensive, these results clearly show Firefox is faster and utilizes less resources in the areas most noticed.

WRT to CPU loading both showed aproximately 60% usage with repeated loadings of this forum, (at www.os2world.com), page.

However, after loading completed available memory showed for;
Firefox ; 335,774
Mozilla ; 332,116

While the difference isn't huge, one wouldn't expect it to be since they are birthed by the same mother.

With regards to XP results, I do not see the relevance since we are clearly talking about the OS/2 versions and we all know that windoze, (as an OS), handles things differently than eCS/OS/2.

In the "Firefox and Thunderbird" vs: "Mozilla the Suite" issue, (with regards to the combination being inferior to the suite), your information is interesting though not relevant. However, those that prefer a suite will find it of some value. One must also point out that "The Suite" has a shakier future than "The Combination". The latter has stronger support, better and more thorough testing. Ergo: the potential longevity is superior.

WRT the discussion, some variation from machine to machine, (and from setup to setup), would be expected. Also, plugins and configurations of either would affect results.

However, my results themselves, are clear and some of yours support it while none of them oppose it outright . The fact that the load times can be clearly and easily measured with a handheld, (wrist-bound), digital watch says much for which is faster.

My position and statements stands intact; Firefox is more efficient than Mozilla.

As an aside, I, personally, I find this whole issue a splitting of hairs since both are far more similar than diverse and personal preference and needs will rule the day more than anything else... that is.. if you disregard the issue of longevity...

What I really like is the fact that we have modern and uptodate choices.

BTW, I'm using eCS 1.2 with AMD 2100 with half a gig RAM.



Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Isaac atomic_frogii@yahoo.ca
Date  :  11 Aug, 2005 on 09:21

Ben Dragon (08 Aug, 2005 21:45):

Isaac (08 Aug, 2005 09:40):
I would dispute that. Have you looked at the resources used? (I used Theseus)
On OS/2 (Warp 4.52 with FP5). I hit the exact same 4 web sites in sequence. Yahoo, GoogleNews, Slashdot, Car and Driver.
Firefox weights in with a memory footprint of over 17MB
Mozilla, the suite, chomps up just over 19MB.

If I run the same test under WindowsXP Pro (as shown by the Task Manager), Firefox typically comes in with the _same_ memory useage as Mozilla suite.

If I now start using Thunderbird in addition, the total memory useage ballons in comparison to Mozilla.

To be fair, Firefox does _feel_ faster during use. That's about it.
I'll switch when Firefox is really lighter.


I timed Firefox opening fresh to full load of my homepage; 5s
I timed Mozilla opening and loading my homepage; 6s easily.

RAM available before loading either. 374,380
After Firefox is loaded; 340,112
After Mozilla is loaded; 336,316

While far from extensive, these results clearly show Firefox is faster and utilizes less resources in the areas most noticed.

WRT to CPU loading both showed aproximately 60% usage with repeated loadings of this forum, (at www.os2world.com), page.

However, after loading completed available memory showed for;
Firefox ; 335,774
Mozilla ; 332,116

While the difference isn't huge, one wouldn't expect it to be since they are birthed by the same mother.


Well, I'm glad we have choice of modern browser. But the comment above just doesn't make sense. The whole point of Firefox is that it is supposed to be more efficient, even if birthed by the same mother. Yet you say the difference isn't huge, in fact quite small.

So by stripping out all the non-browser components, we have saved very negligible amounts. So negligible that the "winner" is hardware dependent. (I actually tried the load time too, sadly, the load time difference is not noticeable here between Firefox and Mozilla. It is around 6s for both, simlar to yours).

[FYI, I'm running Thinkpad T40p with 512MB RAM. It is only Pentium-M 1.6GHz.]

Yes, your point of the suite being neglected is very, very important and very valid. But part of my beef with Firefox is that neglecting the suite is not making sense. Part of the neglect is due to users buying the hype without checking it out and jumping ship to Firefox. When you have hardly any gains in resource use and speed, I'll take the extra features, thank you!

Put it this way, slap the same theme or skin on Firefox and Mozilla and let 10 users try on 10 different machines. If they cannot tell the difference without a stopwatch, the savings are worthless.


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  davidfor
Date  :  12 Aug, 2005 on 04:51

Isaac (11 Aug, 2005 09:21):
Well, I'm glad we have choice of modern browser. But the comment above just doesn't make sense. The whole point of Firefox is that it is supposed to be more efficient, even if birthed by the same mother. Yet you say the difference isn't huge, in fact quite small.

Actually, that's not true. The point of Firefox when it started as Phoenix, was an experiment in the user interface. The people who started it, looked at Mozilla and said "We can do better than that". And they did the browser only, because that's all they were interested in. It also allowed them to concentrate on a single part of the GUI. They did at various points in the development put emphasis on size, but, I can't remember that they ever concentrated on memory footprint. It was always on the package size.


Isaac (11 Aug, 2005 09:21):
So by stripping out all the non-browser components, we have saved very negligible amounts. So negligible that the "winner" is hardware dependent. (I actually tried the load time too, sadly, the load time difference is not noticeable here between Firefox and Mozilla. It is around 6s for both, similar to yours).

The problem is, that both the Suite and the individual packages share a common library for rendering the GUI (the menus, toolbars, buttons, etc.) and the data (web pages, e-mail etc). So, both are loading the same basic code into memory before trying to display anything to the user. This makes the Suite look more efficient, because it reuses libraries for the each of its components. So, opening the Browser loads a lot of libraries, but, opening Mail on top of that loads very few extra libraries. And, opening Firefox opens its copies of the same libraries as the Suite uses. So, I would expect the memory footprint of Firefox to be similar to using just the Browser in Mozilla.


Isaac (11 Aug, 2005 09:21):
Yes, your point of the suite being neglected is very, very important and very valid. But part of my beef with Firefox is that neglecting the suite is not making sense. Part of the neglect is due to users buying the hype without checking it out and jumping ship to Firefox. When you have hardly any gains in resource use and speed, I'll take the extra features, thank you!


I have been amused by this attitude recently. All through the history of Netscape and then Mozilla for OS/2, people were screaming "why can't we just have a browser". People were wanting a browser only solution, so that they could use "real" e-mail and news clients and not have the overhead of the other Suite components. Now that this is available, the screams are going back the other way.

Having said that, I was surprised when the Mozilla Foundation stated they were discontinuing the Suite. The earlier announcements (emphasising the individual applications), had given me the impression that they were planning to replace the Suite with a new one based on the individual Applications. I was expected the suite 2.0 to have the browser replaced by Firefox, and the mail replaced by Thunderbird (with changes to make them consistent and more interoperable). But, they do not seem to be going that way.

Now to the last statement: What are the features that are missing? What does the have that Firefox doesn't? And, what does the Suite have that a combination of Firefox, Thunderbird and Nvu doesn't have? I'm not that interested in the latter, as I don't use a Mozilla product for mail, newsgroups or writing html.


Isaac (11 Aug, 2005 09:21):
Put it this way, slap the same theme or skin on Firefox and Mozilla and let 10 users try on 10 different machines. If they cannot tell the difference without a stopwatch, the savings are worthless.

That wouldn't help me. Firefox works a little differently than the Mozilla Browser, and I like those differences. I like the fact that I can reconfigure the toolbar buttons in anyway that I want. I like the extensions that add all sort of different function to the browser. I like the search box and how easy it is to use different search engines. So, while they are roughly the same speed, and, you could use similar themes, they are different in other ways.

---
David


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  nigel
Date  :  11 Dec, 2005 on 08:00
Hmmm

I'll Jump in here and ask a few stupid questions

I have an old
HP 4403
333mhz
96Mb ram
Running OS/2 warp 4 fixpak 15

Any suggestions as to what browser to use

I got the networking going today and the included ibm browser is pretty terrible i can only view a few sites and can't actually get to sites to find a replacement,
I have since installed netscape 4.6 as i had it on an old disk and it works well APART from resetting the colours on my computer to 256 or 16 (is it supposed to do that), it looks terrible, but it does work

I am currently downloadin firefox 1.5, as it was available, any suggestions etc, any hidden things i should know about

Cheers


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  nigel
Date  :  11 Dec, 2005 on 08:20
I'm back already

firefox 1.5 works fine

the fonts are extremely jagged, but it is a heck of a lot quicker than the previous browsers and it renders everything perfectly

(I did have to install the gcc library thing to make it work)


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  osw
Date  :  11 Dec, 2005 on 10:28

nigel (11 Dec, 2005 08:20):
I'm back already

firefox 1.5 works fine

the fonts are extremely jagged, but it is a heck of a lot quicker than the previous browsers and it renders everything perfectly

(I did have to install the gcc library thing to make it work)


Hi!

Nice to hear you've succeed with firefox 1.5. At the moment I'm writing this comment on firefox 1.6a1 (deer park alpha2). But my first choice browser is SeaMonkey 1.5a ....

You can improve quality of fonts by installing ft2lib from innotek. (antialiasing)

Check this link for infos about mozilla builds on os/2 platform.:
http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/Warpzilla.html

Greetings/2


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  nigel
Date  :  11 Dec, 2005 on 20:46
Yeah I tried the antaliasing thing but it didn't seem to make any difference, the fonts were still quite jagged,

might try installing a few new fonts and see if that helps


Subject  :  Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Author  :  Sander
Date  :  12 Dec, 2005 on 19:57

nigel (11 Dec, 2005 20:46):
Yeah I tried the antaliasing thing but it didn't seem to make any difference, the fonts were still quite jagged,

might try installing a few new fonts and see if that helps


Hi Nigel,

I am using Firefox 1.5 (final) here, along with InnoTek's latest font engine FT2LIB_260_Beta1, and fonts are clearly smooth.

Make sure you are using the latest font engine version:

http://download.innotek.de/ft2lib/InnoTek_FT2LIB_260_Beta1.exe

Also, (although unrelated to your font problem) you said you were using Firefox 1.5, so I will assume you are using the "final" version, and not a beta, but just in case:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/1.5/contrib/firefox-1.5.en-US.os2.zip

If you are already at the current levels, try a reinstall of the font engine. Also, make sure you have the latest (hopefully accelerated) driver available for your graphics card.

I would add that IMO Firefox would be a better choice (especially on your machine) than SeaMonkey for now. While SeaMonkey may, or may not eventually catch up to the development level of Firefox, at least for now Firefox has left SeaMonkey behind in terms of new features, and especially in terms of extensions. It is clear that many of the new extensions are being developed for Firefox only.

Good luck,
Sander Nyman


Powered by UltraBoard 2000 <www.ub2k.com>