Printable View
Internet Explorer's share of the EU browser market has dropped significantly since Microsoft were forced to offer a choice to users.
Article and graphs here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03..._share_europe/
I wonder just how much of this is "novelty value" and the users will return to IE in a few weeks or months?
I'll place money that ie will still hold majority marketshare at the end of the year. As with all new things the "fad" will wear out.
I see it as a case of oh that browser looks interesting download install play with it for a little, revert back to familiar Ie and forget about that other browser.
Even in IE I end up getting rid of alot of things to revert back to the way things looked in version 6 or netscape back in 1996.
Ahhhh Netscape. I miss that Browser. I generally use Opera now (which by the way, yesterday, or the day before, it told me that a new update was available, and so I downloaded and installed that, which looks good I might add and now doesn't by default have the usual user bars with the usual options, it has an Opera button that has all of it built in but you can also use the old style) anyway, Netscape was great.
I still have my SuSE 8.1 Professional installations that have Netscape 4.7 or something on them. I don't like Firefox, and Seamonkey is the only thing that's remotely like Netscape so I have that too, and I still have Konq, Dillo, and a bunch of others I test things with.
WTF happened to Netscape anyway? I remember a while back 7 came out, and then 8 and 9, and then, nothing. The download I kept for Linux of course won't work now because it's old as piss, and it doesn't seem to be around anymore.
Boy did I hate Netscape. What a lousy clunky browser.:)
A bit like Opera :pQuote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
How much resource power does Firefox and Thunderbird need now? A gig of RAM? Compared to Opera which I still run on a 192 MBs RAM 433 MHz Celeron box ;)
How many people these days are still running ancient 433mhz machines?Quote:
Originally Posted by gore
PC/netbooks etc have decent spec's this day and age and thus the resources used by browsers/games/apps etc won't really bottleneck down a system.
Fine if the above were using today's amount back in the day then yes one would complain and be able to use the whole bottleneck reason.
I'm not supporting mozilla just laying down facts. ;)
I'll give you half points on resources just as I did Windows XP when it came out because DooM did the same thing back in the day where it had resource needs that some machines really couldn't handle, and DooM3, came out, and no machines could handle the top level they had built in for graphics abilities yet, and I even saw the people on X-Play saying how in their testing of DooM3, even their top of the line machines couldn't handle putting the Graphics at full levels because it was built in a manner that was meant for the future.
So, I'll give half for that because even though I personally, had my fastest machine, as my laptop (Pentium 4 M @ 3.06 GHz, 512 RAM, no dual core or anything, just regular Pentium 4) until Christmas Morning when I opened up a present that had a better machine.
My Mom bought me a new computer for Christmas, and given I'm not working right now, it's not like I could afford to upgrade or buy a new machine, so I had to use what I DO have for the last couple years. I think it was 2003 or 3004 when I bought that laptop, and it was the fastest machine I had until Christmas Day.
I now have a machine that can handle Vista and Windows 7, and Thunderbird 3... I didn't before.
I do find it funny that DooM3 has lower minimum requirements than Thunderbird 3 though.
Anyway, I've tested a lot of stuff on that laptop, and the last time I did, which was December, Opera was installed with newest version and so was Seamonkey. Firefox was too but Thunderbird, I didn't have enough RAM to test it. Firefox took so long to load that I uninstalled it, IE was... Well, not as bad as Firefox, but bad, and Opera and Seamonkey, if I clicked on BOTH Opera and Seamonkey, at the same time, they both loaded faster than one instance of Firefox. By like 3 times the speed.
That's kind of sad. And of course Firefox saying how secure they are.. Which is like funny now. They're becoming the Windows ME of the browser World.
Clunky my ass. My Wii uses Opera and so do my PCs. Imagine if Wii used Firefox. How long would Mario wait before eating some Mushrooms and jumping on it. (And would a Seamonkey be the result? When Mario jumps on those huge Mushrooms, smaller faster ones pop out!). ;)
If you want to talk about clunky, like, Buick style clunky, I can think of no better contestant than Firefox.
gore
Quote:
WTF happened to Netscape anyway? I remember a while back 7 came out, and then 8 and 9, and then, nothing. The download I kept for Linux of course won't work now because it's old as piss, and it doesn't seem to be around anymore.
http://browser.netscape.com/releases
Windows, MAC and Linux versions ;)
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr: Me? :DQuote:
How many people these days are still running ancient 433mhz machines?
PI/133/ 192Mb
PII/266, 333, 450/ 128, 384, 384Mb
PIII/ 500, 533/ 512Mb
Quite a few people I know use old (usually ex-corporate) kit. That was always pretty minimal because the stuff you run in most businesses does not require much resource.
All they do is e-mail, correspondence and some basic surfing.
FireFox will run on the PII/266/128Mb ;). I had problems with the early versions of 3.5, but those seem to have been resolved.
I think I found a way to describe my problem with Firefox:
Now, this just came to me, so I haven't hashed it out in my head yet, but, I'll try...
When I was looking at upgrading some software on my Laptop, which, I think this was around January this year, I was trying to think of what all to put on it. Basically I wanted to be able to Check Mail, and Surf, and have more than a few Email accounts accessible on my Laptop with Windows XP.
I already had Opera on there, and I had Seamonkey and the mail clients that are in both, but I was looking to try out something from the Firefox people because I kept hearing how Thunderbird was sooooooo neat.
The Laptop is a Pentium 4M @ 3.06 GHz, single core, regular, no special neat stuff, just a normal P4M, and it has 512 MBs of RAM.
I went to the site for Thunderbird, and I was looking at the software we call Thunderbird, and I wanted to make sure it would be OK, so, I checked the "System Resources". I couldn't find them anywhere at first, because they weren't listed next to the statement that "We built Thunderbird for the good of all people and used a cigarette lighter and circuit board to weld it together and we think it's the best thing ever and anyone not using it is insecure and probably dating their cousin"....
Finally I found the specs needed... I was SHOCKED that Thunderbird 3, REQUIRED A MINIMUM of 1 GB of RAM (More was recommended) and basically, somehow, an EMAIL CLIENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Had BIGGER system resources.... BIGGER requirements, then DooM 3, which is a GAME....
I sat there wondering to myself basically "How does an EMAIL Client, need more RAM and CPU power, than DooM3, Quake 4, Linux, BSD, and Unix, and in some cases, combined?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!"....
Can someone explain to me, who thinks that is absurd, how an Email Client can require more System Resources than Windows XP, Windows 2000, basically any version of Linux, and All BSD OSs combined? You could run literally 4 different versions of BSD in LESS RAM than you'd need for Thunderbird.
I can use Slackware Linux as an FTP Server, and Email Server, a Web Server, and a Desktop, in LESS RAM than Thunderbird? HOW is that possible?
I can put Slackware on a 486 still.... I can put FreeBSD on a Cell Phone.... I can't get Thunderbird on something running an ENTIRE OS? and by run I don't mean Walk, I have Slackware running right now on a machine that can't even load an installer for Thunderbird.
I thought XP had some resource needs, but that's a WHOLE OS!
I think that was my issue. ;)
I now have a machine with 4 GBs of RAM, and a Core 2 Duo Processor, and Thunderbird takes longer to load than both Seamonkey and Opera combined. Unreal Tournament doesn't take that long. And it's got WAY more.
Why does it need so much? It doesn't look nice, it doesn't have a game built in, it just checks email with TABS??@?@?@?@!!!!?
Opera has Tabbed Mail, and has since I can remember!
gore old chap, I think that you might be mistaken?
It is what the operating system takes that is giving these figures, not Thunderbird.Quote:
Thunderbird 3: System requirements
In regards of processor and RAM Thunderbird 3 is still not very hungry - according to the developers at Mozilla a Pentium with 233 MHz or better is specified as minimum requirements, but 500 MHz and above are recommended. With older Windows versions like Windows 2000 or XP, 256 MiByte RAM are required while 512 MiByte are said to noticeably speed the system up. For windows Vista and windows 7 on the other hand at least 768 MiByte RAM are required and 1 GiByte is recommended. On the hard drive Thunderbird 3 needs about 52 megabyte of space.
If you want to run Vista or 7 in any case I would recommend at least 1Gb of RAM.
that's not what I read on their site. When I found the requirements, it said a gig of RAM no matter what OS.... I find that odd.
:eek: Johnno :eek: :eek: :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
Yes in my part of the woods you get lot's of the ex corporate machines hitting the local swap meet computer markets they run on the weekends, but even still there usually p4 1.5ghz 512mb / 1gb ram with 20gb drives and dvd burners with all on-board accesories like graphics etc.
usually pick em up for 80$ aus throw in an extra 60$ and you get a nice 20" monitor.
on my msi u100 netbook the specs are pretty low endish, and the latest v of FF and thunderbird run decently on it. Very little to none bottlenecking and im even able to run the latest version of photoshop etc and do a bit of image editing while youtube open in ff with thunderbird running in the back ground.
Is that Speed Dial (R) I see there? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HYBR|D
Hey gore old chap, I agree entirely..............as you have already posted, it is pretty weird that a mail manager wants as much resource as an ENTIRE OS :confused:Quote:
that's not what I read on their site. When I found the requirements, it said a gig of RAM no matter what OS.... I find that odd.
Indeed, that is the case here now. My wife just got one from work..........2006 vintage, core duo 2.66, 1 Gb DDR I , 40 GB SATA HDD, 17" LCD screen.........keyboard & mouse. Legal Windows XP Professional.Quote:
Yes in my part of the woods you get lot's of the ex corporate machines hitting the local swap meet computer markets they run on the weekends, but even still there usually p4 1.5ghz 512mb / 1gb ram with 20gb drives and dvd burners with all on-board accessories like graphics etc.
The people I know, got their stuff a few years back when they retired, or their kids got jobs and left home ;).........sorry mate, I thought you knew I was in that age group :D
Didn't think that you were referring to years ago when you mentioned the specs on the machines. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
You still got a lot of zing to keep up with us younger wipper snappers so i don't bring age bracket into it. :)