Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla Internet Explorer The Internet

Firefox Lite And Old PCs Could Crush IE 434

Posted by Zonk
from the we-don't-play-to-bake-bread dept.
Eatfrank writes "A recent CNet article suggests that Mozilla should pipe a lite version of Firefox into older PCs to further attack IE's dominance: 'Firefox supporters, take note. A bare-bones Firefox will get the browser into more houses, increasing the Fox's market share and keeps it in novice users' eyes for when they get a new PC ... a truly great super-lightweight browser would have the security of Firefox, without the add-ons, without the tabs, yes, even without favourites, history lists and customisability. The Firefox name is synonymous with security and Web-browsing vigilance. Why not give this to the processing lightweights of the PC world?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Lite And Old PCs Could Crush IE

Comments Filter:
  • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:01AM (#19944717) Homepage Journal
    Produce a stripped-down Mozilla light, that will be faster and have a much smaller memory footprint, and will run well on old hardware.

    If my memory serves me well, it was going to be called "Firefox".
    • by hkmwbz (531650) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:06AM (#19944739) Journal
      Actually, it was going to be called Phoenix. Then Firebird. THEN Firefox ;)
      • by Guppy06 (410832)
    • If my memory serves me well, it was going to be called "Firefox".

      Actually, it was called Phoenix.

      </splitting hairs>
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Firefox (Phoenix) started as a lite weight Mozilla.

      What would/could they lose in a lite Firefox; Transformiix, SVG? What for, it's js and flash consume more cpu time and RAM.

      Lite-weight? I'd prefer to see them improve their cache so Fx doesn't eat up 600MB.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by arth1 (260657)
        It started out with the goal of being a lightweight successor to Mozilla. The goal was not reached - every single release has been more bloated than equivalent Seamonkey (the Mozilla successor), and way more bloated than the original Mozilla.

        With the 2.0 release, the requirements and resource use have become so huge that quite a few Firefox-users stay at 1.5 level, or use Seamonkey "barebones" (i.e. without the non-browser components installed).
        An oft heard argument for the exceptionally hig
  • Opera? (Score:5, Informative)

    by hkmwbz (531650) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:03AM (#19944727) Journal
    Several comments in that blog already point out the obvious: Opera already does this. It runs perfectly even on old hardware, and you won't even have to sacrifice any functionality. Hell, there's even K-Meleon, which uses Gecko.

    "Nate is CNET.co.uk's expert on digital music and portable media"

    Expert? He hasn't even figured out that the Opera browser even runs on mobile phones, and using the same engine as the desktop version...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Moby Cock (771358)
      You've missed the point entirely.

      The whole idea is to create a new FF version that does the things that Opera or K-Meleon do but still carries the branding of Firefox. That name has a certain degree of reconizability and a lite version would be useful.
      • Re:Opera? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jkrise (535370) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:47AM (#19944901) Journal

        You've missed the point entirely.

        The whole idea is to create a new FF version that does the things that Opera or K-Meleon do but still carries the branding of Firefox.
        I think it's the Firefox team that's completely missed the point. At my firm, we have several hundred PCs with 256MB RAM running Win2K and XP. We wanted to get rid of the buggy IE7 which go tinstalled as critical update on XP.

        Firefox and Opera were evaluated - and the latter won. It appeared Firefox was not only 'compatible' with IE and rendered all IE-only pages, it was bloated and clumsy like IE as well. The development team seems to have gotten hijacked by a few misguided elements, probably under influence from Microsoft. Firefox on Windows behaves differently to Firefox on Linux - but Opera stays the same.

        The only plus for Firefox is the numerous plug-ins, but what we like to see is pluck-outs that would ensure no memory leaks and lesser footprint. Until those things happen, Firefox will be a product that never reached it's potential.
        • Firefox on Windows behaves differently to Firefox on Linux - but Opera stays the same.

          Interesting comment. This is exactly why I stopped using Opera when I got a Mac. It behaved exactly the same way as Opera on Windows, right down to the behaviour when you click or double-click on text in a text field, and completely ignored the platform UI guidelines (Safari on Windows does the same). It's very strange, since the version of Opera on my Nokia 770 complies exactly with the platform's UI guidelines (I didn't even realise it was Opera at first), and is a joy to use (unless I go to Google Ma

      • by suv4x4 (956391)
        The whole idea is to create a new FF version that does the things that Opera or K-Meleon do but still carries the branding of Firefox. That name has a certain degree of reconizability and a lite version would be useful.

        When they do this "lite" they better give it to me too, since on my 3 GHz machine, Firefox is the worst effin performer out of all other browsers use and test on (Safari, IE, Opera).

        And consider Firefox is already *THE* "lite browser" effort by Mozilla.

        I've heard people tell me "see how every
      • Re:Opera? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kbrosnan (880121) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @08:24AM (#19945081) Homepage

        Chasing after a declining marketshare is a poor business strategy. Windows 98 and ME boxes will be replaced as the years go on.

        Current security bugs often require completely different patches to fix the security flaw. The code base that was used to develop Firefox 2, Gecko 1.8, became largely static in August of 2005. This means that security patches for Firefox 2 start taking significantly more developer time as code bases diverge. The Gecko 1.8 and 1.9 have already have significant differences in the code base different graphics rendering platform, text layout and html processing just to name a few.

        Firefox 3 and Gecko 1.9 will not run on any version of Windows earlier than 2000. This means that the project he suggests would need to be build off the Gecko 1.8 code base. This code base is too old for new projects to be developed on it. The last security patch on the Gecko 1.8 code base will be about a year from now. This leaves any code using this open to any security issues discovered.

      • That name has a certain degree of reconizability

        It certainly does. I recognize Firefox as having nearly as many security issues as IE. Opera is way better in the security area.

      • Only 3 tabs or popups open at any one time!
    • Re:Opera? (Score:5, Funny)

      by SirMeliot (864836) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:32AM (#19944841)
      "Nate is CNET.co.uk's expert on digital music and portable media" Er, I think that means he's the one who's got an iPod.
    • Re:Opera? (Score:4, Informative)

      by squiggleslash (241428) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:46AM (#19944897) Homepage Journal

      He hasn't even figured out that the Opera browser even runs on mobile phones, and using the same engine as the desktop version

      If you're referring to Opera mini, which is pretty much the only genericly available "runs on mobile phones" browser (as opposed to versions that run on some smartphones), then no, it doesn't use the same engine. Opera mini is a very lightweight client to a proxy that runs at Opera's HQ, which reformats web pages to create much simplier pages containing more or less the same content.

      It's very useful, better than nothing, and arguably better than trying to fit a "real" rendering of a webpage onto such a small screen (I also have the Nintendo DS version of Opera, which has a mode based upon this simplified page rendering as well as a full HTML mode, and the former is, usually, more practical than the latter. Something for Apple to think about, perhaps), but it's certainly not using the same engine or anything close to it as the desktop Opera.

      • Re:Opera? (Score:5, Informative)

        by hkmwbz (531650) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:48AM (#19944903) Journal
        No, I was referring to Opera Mobile. It has been preinstalled on phones with as little as 4 MB of memory or so. It might not run on all phones, but it certainly runs on phones that Gecko could never even dream of touching. Oh, and it runs on the Nintendo DS Lite, which is underpowered even compared to today's mobile phones.
      • by hkmwbz (531650)
        To clarify: Yes, the DS browser does indeed use the same engine as the desktop version.
    • by jgrahn (181062)

      Several comments in that blog already point out the obvious: Opera already does this. It runs perfectly even on old hardware, and you won't even have to sacrifice any functionality.

      Actually, Opera 9.2x is noticeably slow on yesteryear's computers, like my brother's Pentium-something-500MHz-or-so running Debian. (I just installed it for him, and expect complaints when he discoveres this.) I believe this performance drop started after the Opera 7 and/or 8 series.

      But I find Firefox is even slower. I hate t

      • by hkmwbz (531650)
        That's odd because I've got Opera 9 running on quite a few low-end computers and it works fine. And according to speed tests [howtocreate.co.uk], Opera 9 is actually faster than Opera 6.
    • by arth1 (260657)
      Opera isn't FOSS, though, and then you might as well continue using IE?
  • by Xiroth (917768) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:06AM (#19944741)
    This doesn't sound like too bad an idea. One issue would be maintenence - if the full version and the lite version had to be maintained seperately, it probably wouldn't be worth it. To keep relevent bugfixes and such applicable to both branches, the code would need to be well designed and presumably fairly modular. Any Mozilla developers (or people familiar with the code) around and willing to comment on whether this would be feasible?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:08AM (#19944751)
    This post is being written on a machine with a 633 MHz processor. It's fairly ancient. It runs the full version of Firefox just fine. Mind you, it isn't running Windows, it's running DamnSmallLinux.

    If I were to want a stripped down Firefox, it would probably be for embedded devices where resources are often quite limited.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sam Douglas (1106539)
      Firefox probably isn't the ideal browser for an embedded device; as much as everyone loves it. Gecko's architecture is very bloated. There are smaller browsers available that would do the job much better... KHTML (if its still called that) for example. -- Sam
  • Opposite effect? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ickoonite (639305) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:10AM (#19944755) Homepage
    "Firefox...without favourites, history lists and customisability"

    Firefox without favourites? Without history? Let's just get this straight - you want people to switch to a browser which has less functionality than the one they are currently using? Again - a browser without favourites? How is this going to give people a positive experience of Firefox and make them want to do anything but work out how to uninstall it...?

    Most braindead idea I have heard all week.

    And, as someone else has already pointed out, originally, Firefox was supposed to be the lite version of the oh-so-slow-and-bloated Mozilla Suite. Would that they had stayed true to their original intentions...

    iqu :|
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shvytejimas (1083291)
      Well you could use online bookmarking services like del.icio.us or mybookmarks...
    • Re:Opposite effect? (Score:4, Informative)

      by hacker (14635) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Sunday July 22, 2007 @08:52AM (#19945201)

      Firefox without favourites? Without history?

      Yes, it's called a default homepage. You build a local index.html that includes the links you want (you call them Favorites, but we in the non-Windows world call them Bookmarks) and load that as your default homepage in FF-Slim.

      This is not an issue at all. History might be a problem, but you can always use 'about:cache' or 'about:history' to derive that.

      • by Tim C (15259)
        you call them Favorites, but we in the non-Windows world call them Bookmarks

        It's the non-IE world that calls them bookmarks, not the non-Windows world...

        History might be a problem, but you can always use 'about:cache' or 'about:history' to derive that.

        Do you seriously think any non-geek is going to be happy with that? Or with creating a local index.html file for that matter...
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ConanG (699649)
      Ok, I like using favorites and history. I also like using tabs. A browser without them would not be fun for me. But remember, we are geeks.

      I've been using Firefox as my main browser for at least 4 years now, but I only introduced it to my family about 1-2 years ago. NONE of them use tabs. No matter how many times I show them, they can't seem to remember to open new tabs. I don't think anyone but my brother even knows the browser history even exists, but he does use it when he needs to. Nobody but me has
    • by PhotoGuy (189467)
      I would love to see a thorough analysis of the memory footprint of firefox. Favorites and history lists? How the hell can those small features take much space? Opera does it all that and more, and better browsing overall (except for a few incompatible sites), in a fraction of the space. What's going on???
  • webkit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IceFox (18179) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:12AM (#19944765) Homepage
    Well before going to extreme removing everything useful (heck Netscape 3 had a history and I remember running it on really slow computers) why not first change the rendering engine to use webkit which uses a lot less memory? Why do you think phone companies are investing in it over mozilla?
  • Chances are the old machines that don't have the resources to even handle a basic Firefox install are loaded down with tons of other crap anyway. I'm talking about system tray items for every app on the computer. And let's not forget, this was before automatic updates, so we can be fairly certain the machine isn't up-to-date patchwise. This means that there are probably god knows how many adware/spyware/viruses/trojans running in the background, too. In order for this lightweight version of Firefox to be tr
  • Why not Lynx? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mce (509) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:20AM (#19944795) Homepage Journal

    Excuse me: "without the tabs" and "Firefox ... is synonymous with security"? For me Firefox is also - and actually formost - synonym with tabbed browsing.

    My own windows box has IE 7 for the sake of those few sites that really need IE (Windows Update, mainly). Of course I use Mozilla (albeit Seamonkey, not Firefox) for all other browsing on Linux as well as Windows. But recently I had the misfortune of having to intensively use IE 6 for two months "at work". The one thing that I hated most was the absense of tabs, not the lesser security.

    Don't get me wrong, the security argument is very valid. But the target audience is going to be much more convinced by the tabs. If not, I suggest putting Lynx on the machines. It's even more leightweight, and it even has more security advantages, since no hacker targets it (anymore) and since features that aren't there can't be abused. Now really...

  • Bookmarks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ishmaelflood (643277) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:21AM (#19944803)
    I don't understand why bookmarks get the flick, since they've been around since the year dot, and are both 'light' and important. Other than that it sounds like a good idea. Having said that, until two years ago I was using an AMD 400 as my internet PC, it seemed just fine on dialup, using FF 1.5 or so, on W98SE. I don't get the impression that browser speed or footprint is a big deal in itself, most of the processing seems to be content.

    • by evilviper (135110)

      I don't get the impression that browser speed or footprint is a big deal in itself, most of the processing seems to be content.

      You've never used a lightweight browser. Try something like Dillo. Pages which take seconds to load in Firefox/IE/Opera, render before you lift your finger off the mouse button, or enter key. Admittedly, it lacks many features, but disable them in other browsers, and the effect is the same.

      Slow rendering of "content" is entirely the fault of a poor performing browser, or, perhaps

  • Hmm, (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Verte (1053342)
    I highly doubt "tabs, ..favourites, history lists" are the memory burner. Would be an interesting area to analyse, though.
  • by 3seas (184403) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @07:50AM (#19944913) Journal
    ....To get them web-able would mean I could find a usable home for them....

    But I get the impression that what is referred to as old here is system produced 5 -7 years ago.

    Hell I'm running off an overclocked to just over 500Mhz box right now using Ubuntu. Its my main internet system. It does just fine.

    Having been screwed badly by the computer industry during the commodore fall and its thieving aftermath I haven't found a good enough reason to upgrade to the latest and greatest but rather wait for perfectly good hardware to be tossed out. I'll make smaller purchases in fixing or upgrading some tossed out systems but that's not very often. Getting to be just DVD R/W drives anymore. And that is so I can run live Linux CDs such as Dynebolic.

    But this doesn't work for the older systems.

    So to me old system fall in the category of 486's to Pentium I, and I have quite a few of those that will either make it into next years Decatur High free electronics recycling mine (yes, electronic based hardware has more mineral value in it than its weight in raw dirt based ore and such... And to think some places want to charge you to recycle) or I'll find an easy way to make them useful again which is the preferred method even with recyclers.

    So if the software industry got back to lean and mean OSs and small but very usable internet applications and put together a package that could be test run via CD (or floppy/cd combo for those old system that just can't boot from CD) there could possible be an extension to the usable life of systems that otherwise make it to the landfill or recycling mine.

    I'd been hoping that AROS would fit here but unless someone take on dev for old 486 systems, its not going to happen.

    Anyone know of any such a package easy to test on old systems (live cd or floppy/cd bootable)?
    • With regard to the 486s, a former housemate of mine used to run a SPARCStation 2 (75MHz SuperSPARC) with NetBSD, WindowMaker and Opera. If they're fast 486s, they probably have a similar amount of processing power, so I wouldn't be surprised if they could handle the same combination.
      • I used to teach C programming on system V back in the early '90s, 16 terminals hanging off a 66Mhz 486.
    • But I get the impression that what is referred to as old here is system produced 5 -7 years ago ... Hell I'm running off an overclocked to just over 500Mhz box right now using Ubuntu. Its my main internet system. It does just fine.

      From the fine article:

      Let the 500MHz Celerons embrace their 128MB of RAM and run the world's best browser without feeling like they're being bent over a table and bitch-slapped by more capable machines.

      My guess is the majority of home user systems out there fall into that category

  • Check out Minimo [mozilla.org]. Granted it's targeted for mobile devices, but would be the right starting point than scaling down Firefox.
    • For those of you looking for a more bare-metal kind of browser like Dillo except with more rendering capability then start packaging! I'm sure they could use the bug reports too. We could use a GNU version of it too.
  • If I am not mistaken the OLPC project had to double the amount of RAM to get Firefox to run properly on the system. It looks like Firefox could indeed benefit from losing a bit of excess fat.

    As for this story, I doubt that bookmarks, history and those kinds of features are the ones making Firefox run slow. It probably has more to do with the architecture itself.

    • by IceFox (18179)
      OLPC choose firefox over webkit not for technical reasons, but for political reasons. They wanted to increase the firefox market share through the millions of people using the OLPC. When webkit was brought up for its smaller footprint and its better match for the OLPC project it was shoot down from those on top.
  • I can run Firefox 1.5.0.12, SeaMonkey 1.1.3, and with a slight tweak Firefox 2.0.0.5 under Windows NT 3.51 and Windows 95. On slower CPUs such as a Pentium 200 it runs acceptably for the most part. On faster CPUs speed is almost the same.

    At about 5 megs, size wise Firefox is quite small to, compared to modern apps that often come on multiple CDs or DVDs bundled with gigs of junk.

    Firefox does have a few performance issues. Try loading a page with a dropdown that has 100,000 or so items. Firefox will sit ther
  • by sonofagunn (659927) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @08:08AM (#19945009)
    I am writing this from a 500 Mhz, 384 MB RAM, Windows 2000 PC. It is 7 years old. I run the latest and greatest Opera, IE, Firefox, and Eclipse (w/ many plugins) all simultaneously for web development. I don't experience any problems in doing so. Eclipse takes a while to start up, but hell, it does so on my modern PC at the office as well. Face it, web browsing doesn't require much hardware at all - even with the newest browsers.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MBGMorden (803437)
      That's not necessarily too ancient a PC. My sister uses a 300mhz K6-2 with 128mb of RAM and it runs Firefox just fine too, but I think what the article is talking about is more like those old 486's and early Pentium's. The sub-200mhz (maybe as low as 50mhz) machines running 16-32mb of RAM. Correct me if I'm wrong but Firefox won't even run on Windows 95 will it? There still are a number of people out there running hopelessly outdated equipment like this. Now, technically, they SHOULD get something newe
  • Why on old PC's? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by houghi (78078) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @08:09AM (#19945013)
    Why not on new PC's. Are there people who enjoy having to run bloated software? Make it available and if it ALSO runs on older hardware, that is even better.

    When did we stop to program with bounderies in our minds? Memory is not an issue. Drive space is not an issue. So please start programming again with these things in mind.
  • Better approach should be to get the major vendors, HPs and Dells to install Firefox as OEM. Why no one is doing it?
  • Ummm, as the article states, one of the reasons why Firefox is increasing in marketshare is because Google is having it pre-loaded.

    If people are on older PCs, and they haven't upgraded to IE7 through automatic updates, what are the chances that they are going to be downloading a lite version of Firefox and installing it?? Effectively, zero.

    So could "Firefox Lite And Old PCs Could Crush IE"? Nope.
  • I'm not really understanding this here. The point is to introduce a version of firefox with no tabs, no history--basically no kind of advanced functionality other than the ability to display a web page. This is supposed to replace IE, which now supports all of those (with the exception of tabs, unless they're running IE7--which requires XP or higher) and could be run on an older PC. And pray tell, how are we ever going to convince people to do that? In my experience, people trust their antivirus and ant
  • I've NEVER had the huge memory leaks everyone reports... biggest it has ever grown 98MB, typically 35 - 45MB But then... I'm only running a few extensions... Add Boomark Here, ChromEdit Plus, Download Status Bar, Tabbrowser Preferences, DOM Inspector, Beagle Indexer (only on my linux setups) and wmlbrowser.

    Okay so it's not a few... but yet I never have these memory leaks. Whenever it grows in memory, it's because I have 20+ tabs open. I use it on quite a few P3s at the office, on lab boxes, however IE

    • by Sigma 7 (266129)

      I've NEVER had the huge memory leaks everyone reports... biggest it has ever grown 98MB,

      Most people consider that to be inefficient use of resources - especially on a notebook with 512MB Ram. While Firefox alone doesn't cause problems, I usually need to run it alongside another application (e.g. MSVC).

      Whenever it grows in memory, it's because I have 20+ tabs open. I use it on quite a few P3s at the office, on lab boxes, however IE6 runs just as well on these boxes, and security is not so much of an issue. Those fall more under the ID 10 T errors.

      For quite a long time under Win98/ME, I've been able to open enough Netscape or Mozilla windows to exceed the maximum number of GDI handles with other applications not encountering performance issues right up until the handles were exhausted. Unless I had moderator access to Slashdot (those

  • by Aussie (10167) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @08:46AM (#19945171) Journal
    Kmeleon [sourceforge.net]

    K-Meleon is an extremely fast, customizable, lightweight web browser for the Win32 (Windows) platform based on the Gecko layout engine (the rendering engine of Mozilla). K-Meleon is free, open source software released under the GNU General Public License.
    • It is a shame that K-Meleon doesn't get more love. It was around before Firefox when the Mozilla suite was all there was. It does run really well on old computers. In our office we have 266mhz computers that they somehow thought it would be a good idea to put XP on. Both IE and Firefox take forever to load but K-Meleon is quite fast.

      That being said, it is almost too stripped down and I've switched to using Opera on the office computer (actually Ive switched to not using the office computer whenever poss
  • ...is just a bit of work and focus of streamlining and optimization. I too remember when Firefox was a lot faster. Now it's getting a bit bloated the more they add to it. When 2.x came out, I was heavily resisting the upgrade as I had heard too much about where 2.x was going wrong. I stayed with 1.5.0.x for as long as I could and then when I installed Fedora7, that was the end of my resistance.

    So my thoughts to whoever may be in charge of directing Firefox development, it's time to freeze the code addit
  • by knarf (34928) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @09:14AM (#19945335) Homepage
    Some years ago I made a set of patches [geocities.com] to the Dillo [dillo.org] browser to support tabs and frames and other such things. I kept logs of the increase in memory use, binary size and other metrics. While the binary size and memory use went up a tiny little bit (several kilobytes) this should be offset against running several open windows or instances of a program. Compared to that using tabs actually saves memory, not to mention hassle when not using a tabbed window manager.
  • the Flashblock plugin has made the web much faster for me. Are their plugins that block Javascript selectively?
  • A bare-bones Firefox will get the browser into more houses, increasing the Fox's market share and keeps it in novice users' eyes for when they get a new PC

    Fun with numbers: W3Schools shows Vista with a 3.0% share in June. Up from 0% in January 2007. Linux at 3.4%. Up 0.4% from January 2004. OS Platform Statistics [w3schools.com]

    It is worth taking a look at W3Schools Display Statistics [w3schools.com]

    While surfing the content-rich web - the media-rich web - in 2007 is fundamentally a middle-class experience, the demands of the brows

  • You of course mean: simply have it available as another download option. Your headline read like Mozilla should 'push' FF onto unsispecting users PCs.

    "Pipe" not mentioned in the original article, FWIW.

  • Frankly, the article is useless.

    The author seems to live in a "fanboi la-la land" world where there are only two web browsers, Firefox and MSIE, and his whole article is based upon that ignorance of alternatives.

    There are, as others have pointed out, smaller, faster browsers than Firefox. Opera consistently beats all its rivals in speed tests, on older as well as newer hardware.

    I appreciate that everybody has their personal preferences but the author is clearly blind if he can't see the alternatives availab
  • by gelfling (6534) on Sunday July 22, 2007 @01:19PM (#19946879) Homepage Journal
    Until last year I had a P-3 slot 1 550 (upgraded from a 400-500-550-750 then the 750 died went back to the 550) with 224MB RAM running W2KSP5 and Netscape 7.2 and it ran fine. If I were doing the same thing today I'd just replace NS7.2 with Seamonkey 1.1.3 which is what I have running today on all the other machines. I am typing this on a homemade slot 370 P-3 1200Mhz machine with 512MB RAM and Seamonkey. A little slower to start than new machines but entirely usable.

    Seamonkey is a bit lighter and quicker than FF, it handles multiuser profiles a bit better than FF and most of the useful xpi extensions run on it.

If entropy is increasing, where is it coming from?

Working...