Home | Gallery | Forum | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
OS2 World.Com Forum
OS2 World.Com Online Discussion Forum.
Index / OS/2 - General / Internet
author message
Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
Ben Dragon
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 139
since: 15 Apr, 2004
21. Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 08 Aug, 2005 21:45 (5 times)

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.


Date: 08 Aug, 2005 on 16:39
Isaac
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.novus-tele.net/~isaacl
posts: 49
since: 23 Jan, 2004
22. Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

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.

Date: 11 Aug, 2005 on 09:21
davidfor
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.os2world.com/djfos2
posts: 145
since: 20 Jan, 2003
23. Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

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

Date: 12 Aug, 2005 on 04:51
nigel
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://nigel.geek.nz
posts: 14
since: 01 Dec, 2005
24. Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
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

Date: 11 Dec, 2005 on 08:00
nigel
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://nigel.geek.nz
posts: 14
since: 01 Dec, 2005
25. Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
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)

Date: 11 Dec, 2005 on 08:20
osw
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 44
since: 05 Apr, 2005
26. Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

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

Date: 11 Dec, 2005 on 10:28
nigel
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://nigel.geek.nz
posts: 14
since: 01 Dec, 2005
27. Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
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

Date: 11 Dec, 2005 on 20:46
Sander
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 39
since: 20 Feb, 2003
28. Re:Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 12 Dec, 2005 20:02 (2 times)

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

Date: 12 Dec, 2005 on 19:57
Your Favorite Browser For OS/2 Warp
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
All times are CET+1. < Prev. | P. 1 2 | Next >
Go to:
 

Powered by UltraBoard 2000 Standard Edition,
Copyright © UltraScripts.com, Inc. 1999-2000.
Home | Gallery | Forums | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
OS2 World.Com 2000-2004