On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Dick Roth <raroth7 at comcast.net> wrote: > > I've been using Seamonkey from the Mozilla site with mixed experience. > It handles graphics/videos better than Firefox, but goes off to lala > land chewing up cpu cycles to 95% for minutes at a time. Top indicates > that it is seamonkey-bin that is loading the cpu, so I doubt that it is > a CentOS (5.4) issue. > I've seen that, too, but it only happens once in a long while. My bigger complaint is that both SeaMonkey and Firefox tend to lose their minds when it comes to playing videos if they've been running continuously for too long (the exact length of this time varies, but it seems to be more than one day). They both do the same thing - they either play 1-3 seconds of the video and stop, or they play the whole video with short bursts of super-speed sound blips every so often. A complete stop and restart always fixes this, but I find it annoying. I've also noticed that Gmail frequently causes SM to hang for up to two minutes or longer under certain, not entirely predictable circumstances, but this ONLY happens when I have a Gmail lab feature enabled. This differs from the CPU munching cycles in that, when this happens, SM just stops and there's no CPU activity at all. It seems to be harmless, though, because it either recovers by itself or I get impatient, kill SM and bring it back with no detriment visible. I like SM better because the interfaces have more user-level controls and you can pretty much configure anything at all in the browser that it can do, whereas FF is much less flexible. I also like the fact that SM is a complete web access suite, whereas FF is strictly a browser. (I confess, though, that I only use SM's browser and composer - I use Evolution for email and I don't chat or IM at all.) I use them for different purposes, too - SM for general browsing, FF for watching videos online and for cases where I need multiple different logins to the same site (like Yahoo or Gmail) at the same time. mhr