Netscape 9 removes SuiteMonkey
- Scarlettrunner20
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: February 13th, 2003, 5:06 pm
Netscape 9 removes SuiteMonkey
Why would Netscape 9 remove Suitemonkey? It did so without telling me -- much less asking if that was ok. I vaguely recall years ago that I could not upgrade to Netscape 6.0 because of conflicts with Mozilla which I also had...but removing Suitemonkey silently? Netscape 9 is full of bugs...serious ones. If I had known it would uninstall SuiteMonkey, I wouldn't have tried it...it is way too buggy to use besides not nearly as nice as SeaMonkey.
- Philip Chee
- Posts: 6475
- Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Netscape 9 removes SuiteMonkey
What makes you think it removes Suitemonkey, er, SeaMonkey?Scarlettrunner20 wrote:Why would Netscape 9 remove Suitemonkey? It did so without telling me -- much less asking if that was ok. I vaguely recall years ago that I could not upgrade to Netscape 6.0 because of conflicts with Mozilla which I also had...but removing Suitemonkey silently? Netscape 9 is full of bugs...serious ones. If I had known it would uninstall SuiteMonkey, I wouldn't have tried it...it is way too buggy to use besides not nearly as nice as SeaMonkey.
Phil
- Scarlettrunner20
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: February 13th, 2003, 5:06 pm
- steviex
- Moderator
- Posts: 28902
- Joined: August 12th, 2006, 8:27 am
- Location: Middle England
What Jasonb meant was that this topic has been moved to Tech... But, however, as it is a Netscape issue, it belongs in Other Applications/Distributions. So I am going to move it there....
A shadow topic will be left to guide you....
A shadow topic will be left to guide you....
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
Please DO NOT PM me for support... Lets keep it on the board, so we can all learn.
Please DO NOT PM me for support... Lets keep it on the board, so we can all learn.
- Scarlettrunner20
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: February 13th, 2003, 5:06 pm
Re: Netscape 9 removes SuiteMonkey
Philip Chee wrote:What makes you think it removes Suitemonkey, er, SeaMonkey?Scarlettrunner20 wrote:Why would Netscape 9 remove Suitemonkey? It did so without telling me -- much less asking if that was ok. I vaguely recall years ago that I could not upgrade to Netscape 6.0 because of conflicts with Mozilla which I also had...but removing Suitemonkey silently? Netscape 9 is full of bugs...serious ones. If I had known it would uninstall SuiteMonkey, I wouldn't have tried it...it is way too buggy to use besides not nearly as nice as SeaMonkey.
Phil
I installed Netscape 9 out of curiosity due to a thread in the Mozilla forum at dslreports. (Much of the offensive EULA is gone in version 9. I never installed Netscape 8 because of the EULA). Netscape 9 is just Fx rebranded and a couple of things added..a mini browser and links bar. After I installed it and could not get any extensions installed even after bumping them (although my Fx theme installed fine), I shut it down and was going to start up SuiteMonkey and it was not in QuickStart...hmmm....so I went looking for it and the entire directory is gone. It was there before I installed Netscape 9 so I think Netscape uninstalled it. It's no big loss as SuiteMonkey 2.0a1pre is not very usable at this early stage, plus, I need to install a more recent nightly anyway and I will be uninstalling Netscape. I don't know if Netscape does this to the official SeaMonkey (as I don't have it on the virtual machine where I installed Netscape) but I would be leery of installing Netscape 9 if I was user who has either SeaMonkey or SuiteMonkey installed.
- Philip Chee
- Posts: 6475
- Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:03 pm
- Contact:
- Scarlettrunner20
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: February 13th, 2003, 5:06 pm
I'm talking about the actual installation. I recall conflicts with Mozilla 1.5 (I think it was) and Netscape 7. I couldn't install both Mozilla 1.5 and Netscape 7 as Netscape would uninstall Mozilla. (This was not the profile conflict that affected Fx and Mozilla about that same time).
Since you have had no problems, I think I will revert to an earlier snapshot and install Netscape again and see what happens, but not tonight.
I didn't have Netscape long enough to confirm or disconfirm, but someone at dslreports has stated that, after much testing, they are convinced that Netscape 9 has solved the Fx and SeaMonkey memory leak. Is this true? I've gotten so used to Fx and Seamonkey (official version not SuiteMonkey builds) using 350,000k + on a regular basis that I wouldn't know what to do if that was fixed. Fx and SeaMonkey use more memory than VMware Workstation 5.5 with two virtual computers running so if Netscape has actually fixed the problem that is huge news. I'm thinking of the many users who find the memory leak puzzling and frustrating. I know what causes much of the high memory usage for me but others are not using the extension that I know causes much of it for me and for them there is no clear cause...just the irritation.
Since you have had no problems, I think I will revert to an earlier snapshot and install Netscape again and see what happens, but not tonight.
I didn't have Netscape long enough to confirm or disconfirm, but someone at dslreports has stated that, after much testing, they are convinced that Netscape 9 has solved the Fx and SeaMonkey memory leak. Is this true? I've gotten so used to Fx and Seamonkey (official version not SuiteMonkey builds) using 350,000k + on a regular basis that I wouldn't know what to do if that was fixed. Fx and SeaMonkey use more memory than VMware Workstation 5.5 with two virtual computers running so if Netscape has actually fixed the problem that is huge news. I'm thinking of the many users who find the memory leak puzzling and frustrating. I know what causes much of the high memory usage for me but others are not using the extension that I know causes much of it for me and for them there is no clear cause...just the irritation.
- Philip Chee
- Posts: 6475
- Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:03 pm
- Contact:
Netscape Navigator 9.0.0.3 uses exactly the same codebase as Firefox 2.0.0.9 and SeaMonkey 1.1.6 so anything that leaks in Firefox 2.0.0.9 or SeaMonkey 1.1.6 will leak in NN 9.0.0.3. Most of the leaks these days come from extensions so perhaps what you are seeing is a lack of extensions for NN9.
Phil
Phil
- Scarlettrunner20
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: February 13th, 2003, 5:06 pm
Yes, I think unless someone can install the same profile and exactly the same extensions and theme on Netscape that they have on Fx and/or SeaMonkey that they can't really compare them in regards to memory leaks. I don't think I could get the extension that causes the memory "problem" for me to even install on Netscape 9 so I can't test that but perhaps some who can get all extensions, etc. installed on Netscape will see that the memory leak is there also. I think for comparison purposes there is also the possiblity that an extension for Fx might behave differently on Netscape. I know my Fx theme installed easily on Netscape but I had no linksbar or mini browser after installing the theme. I didn't notice any other problems though with using the theme.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: November 5th, 2007, 6:13 pm
Philip Chee wrote:Netscape Navigator 9.0.0.3 uses exactly the same codebase as Firefox 2.0.0.9 and SeaMonkey 1.1.6 so anything that leaks in Firefox 2.0.0.9 or SeaMonkey 1.1.6 will leak in NN 9.0.0.3. Most of the leaks these days come from extensions so perhaps what you are seeing is a lack of extensions for NN9.
Phil
How can that be possible. I'm using NN9 with almost the same extensions as FF 2.0.0.9 - No memory leak problem. Here is the list of extensions I'm using.
NN9
*** Extensions (enabled: 17, disabled: 0; total: 17)
Adblock Plus 0.7.5.3
Advanced Bookmark Search 0.3
Bookmark Duplicate Detector 0.6.3
BugMeNot 1.3
CustomizeGoogle 0.63
Download Statusbar 0.9.5.1
Image Zoom 0.3
InfoLister 0.9f.2
OpenBook 1.3.4.1
Paste and Go 2 0.8
PDF Download 0.9.3.2
SafeCache 0.9
ShowIP 0.8.05
Sort Bookmarks 0.7.0
Text size toolbar 0.6.2
TinyUrl Creator 1.0.4
Update Notifier 0.1.5.3
Firefox
*** Extensions (enabled: 21, disabled: 0; total: 21)
Adblock Plus 0.7.5.3
Advanced Bookmark Search 0.3
Bookmark Duplicate Detector 0.6.3
BugMeNot 1.3
CustomizeGoogle 0.63
Download Statusbar 0.9.5.1
Image Zoom 0.3
InfoLister 0.9f.2
Java Console 6.0.03
Menu Editor 1.2.3.3
MR Tech Local Install 5.3.2.6
OpenBook 1.3.4.1
Paste and Go 2 0.8
PDF Download 0.9.3.2
SafeCache 0.9
ShowIP 0.8.05
Sort Bookmarks 0.5.0.1
Tab Mix Plus 0.3.6
Text size toolbar 0.6.2
TinyUrl Creator 1.0.4
Update Notifier 0.1.5.3
- Pim
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: May 17th, 2004, 2:04 pm
- Location: Netherlands
I'm a bit confused here, but is SuiteMonkey an actual name for an application? I mean, like Iceape and such?
If so, if could be that Netscape believes, because of the way SuiteMonkey identifies itself, that SuiteMonkey is really an older version of Netscape Navigator that needs to be uninstalled.
Just guessing.
For me personally, I always keep a large number of browsers on my system and I never have had any problems with one browser killing off another.
Why does the phrase "browser wars" come to mind?
If so, if could be that Netscape believes, because of the way SuiteMonkey identifies itself, that SuiteMonkey is really an older version of Netscape Navigator that needs to be uninstalled.
Just guessing.
For me personally, I always keep a large number of browsers on my system and I never have had any problems with one browser killing off another.
Why does the phrase "browser wars" come to mind?
Groetjes, Pim
- Philip Chee
- Posts: 6475
- Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:03 pm
- Contact:
- Philip Chee
- Posts: 6475
- Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:03 pm
- Contact:
Me, neither. And I have three versions of SeaMonkey and one version of Mozilla Suite installed not to mention I also have NS8 and NS8.1 installed. And I've been testing Netscape Navigator 9 since the first public beta. And none of the times I've installed a new version of NN9 has anything like this ever happen.Pim wrote:OK, but then the question isn't answered. It never happened to me. And I can't recall earlier reports about his happening.
Phil (perhaps something to do with the phase of the moon)