Username or EmailPassword
"Too bad, because FF3 actually saw some marked improvements in memory usage compared to FF2."
Yes, I have heard about the improvements but I don't like the way it looks. Maybe I can skin it or something.
"Uhhh...I think thats just you, buddy. Granted I'm using FF3 on Linux and of course this new version takes on the local look and feel of the OS you're using it on. Maybe its just the fact that its using native Windows stuff that gives you the inclination that its more Microsofty."
I sit corrected - I was remembering the version on my gaming box, which is XP.
"I used to use Dillo a lot, but I'm afraid its just not practical anymore with richer content being soooo much more common. It also hardly matters from a performance standpoint with hardware as cheap as it is and most modern browsers being pretty quick. Opera is a fine browser though, and I can't knock you for choosing it, even though I prefer FF3 for mostly petty reasons myself."
I never need rich content - as a matter of fact, I hate rich content. I need text and graphics only, with a couple of exceptions: my banking site and some of the sites I pay bills at. Don't get me wrong, rich content looks pretty, once, but gets in my way and makes things slow to a crawl. Flash is a huge offender, except when it's used on YouTube...! Gotta have some entertainment every once in a while.
Getting ready to give Dillo a spin again, but I'll need to keep Opera around for stuff Dillo won't work with.
Removed. Edited 2008-11-07 02:09 UTC
Whats stupid about the statement?
All that crap just plain sucks if you are in a bandwidth limited situation and just want to read the news while waiting to load 1 or 2 mb of 'rich' content which is normally ads or leading right to them.
Drives me crazy on my cell - got to pay bandwidth and kill the battery at the same time to look at BS.
I would kill for a browser like Dillo on my cell.