9 thoughts on “Firefox 2.0 or not”

  1. Om,

    For faster FF surfing on OS/X try one of the optimized MacIntel or PPC builds. FF is way more responsive now on my G4.

    2nd tip for a much faster FF experience in OS/X is to disable Flash using the ‘Flashblock’ extension. Macromedia’s implementation of the Flash plugin for OS/X browsers is notoriously slow and buggy. Flashblock allows you re-enble flash elements with a click as needed.

    On second thought if you’re on macIntel I’m not sure if Flash is still a problem… won’t hurt to try it I suppose.

  2. FF 2.0 could hardly be slower or less responsive than FF 1.5 or it would cease to function altogether. I gave up on it — Camino is infinitely better on OS X, and Epiphany kicks its butt on Debian GNU/Linux. Don’t know about Windows.

    It’s a shame the once “lightweight” alternative to the Mozilla suite has now become more bloated and all-consuming (as in RAM) than the suite ever was, even with the built-in email client.

  3. hey mark,

    flash is still a problem which is why i split the time between camino and safari. i don’t think unless they do a proper intel-mac ready browser that i would consider using firefox.

    thanks for the tip on zapping flash plugin.

  4. david and mcubed, i have heard precisely the same stories. i think the ff 1.5 is bloated and boring, and that is why i find 2.0 refreshing from a speed perspective.

    opera, somehow doesn’t do it for me. don’t ask me why, but it just doesn’t …

  5. “have a more legitimate reason to use 2.0 than anyone else. “

    Firefox is build on many versions of Netscape and Mozilla technology. Its version number approaching 2.0 is as arbitrary as any version number.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.