Before booking, I tried to look at the prices on offer from Jetstar:
...however, rendering is awful. So bad I was unable to fill in the flight search form.
I'm using SeaMonkey 2.0 every day now, and when I first started using it I was pleased that now I am using the same rendering engine as Firefox 3.5. But now I'm not so pleased.
Anyone reading this who is running SM 1.1.18, does that site render ok for you? Firefox? Opera?
I'm increasingly thinking I might go back to SM 1.1.18.
Another thing that is broken in SM2 is drag-and-drop of URLs. I used to be able to drag a file from the web browser window to any open ROX-Filer window, and wget would start and download it -- very convenient -- wget is much better than the SM Downloader. However with SM2, wget reports that the URL is broken.
Comments:Posted on 2 Dec 2009, 19:21 by gposil
The Jetstar site renders perfectly in Firefox 3.5.5 on Dpup, but SM2 does not...strange I thought they were supposed to have the same rendering engine...doesn't look like it...
Posted on 2 Dec 2009, 19:36 by Sage
Jetstar renders perfectly in FF2-series, FF3-series but looks best of all with tidy fonts, etc. in Opera10.
This concords with what I've been saying for a very long time......
Posted on 2 Dec 2009, 19:39 by WN2A
The JetStar site looks Fully Functional with:
Shockwave 10.0.0 d525
Posted on 2 Dec 2009, 21:13 by lobster
render unto 1.1.18
Looked OK in Opera 10.10 and Flock
but rendered best in Seamonkey 1.1.18
It is extended use that is the test . . .
Posted on 2 Dec 2009, 22:15 by kirk
I like Seamonkey (1.x) because of it's size/functionality, but I quit using it due to it not rendering pages correctly. Priceline, a travel site, was the last straw for me. So now I'm using Firefox 3.x. I've read that 30% of all internet traffic is from Firefox, so I would think anyone making a web site would test it with Firefox.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 3:50 by panzerpuppy
SeaMonkey 1.1, SM 2.0, Opera and Firefox
SeaMonkey 2.0 is the worst of the pack. Firefox renders web pages better, but uses *a lot* of memory (and more disk space).
Opera 10.10 and Seamonkey 1.1.18 are still the best browsers for Puppy Linux.
Opera has an edge when it comes to memory consumption, overall rendering speed and standards support, but SeaMonkey comes with a web composer.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 5:13 by nic2109
On a related theme, your blog doesn't render properly on Google's Chrome browser under Windows! So if those two giants cannot get it right, then clearly it's not straight-forward.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 6:06 by disciple
Renders fine in the indomitable Firefox 1.5... I wonder what on earth they've done to SM2 :)
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 6:21 by kirk
I'm really not a fanboy for any browser, I just want one that works. They all seem to work pretty well to me, it's just that Firefox seems to have less page rendering problems and I think that is due to it being so popular. It's a real problem for unpopular browsers (Seamonkey, Opera, ...) Web site designers will almost certainly test with IE, Firefox, and maybe Safari, but I don't know if they're likely to test with the others.
Mozilla's memory usage depends on how much RAM is available. Disk usage depends on how you have cache configured.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 11:06 by downsouth
FF 3.0.10 / Pup 421 OK
Jetstar site clear - using arial font with Firefox 3.0.10 & Puppy 4.2.1
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 11:07 by playdayz
Firefox 3.6b5pre has the same rendering problem as SM2, the date and year are scrunched together and you cannot see the second digit of the day or the last digit of the year. Iron looks fine.
I use SRWWare Iron routinely and I have found that it often works when other browsers don't; i understand that Chromium leverages google computers to do automated testing. Iron works fine in uPup but not in dPup or any other pup becaue it needs glibc 2.9+.
The modern browsers, by which I mean FF3.6 and Iron of those available for Linux, are so much quicker than the old ones such as SM 1.1.18 that it is hard to use the old ones.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 11:21 by playdayz
I am using SM2 in a uPup I made with Woof 20091120 AND IT it RENDERING PERFECTLY. The only thing customized was that I added all xorg_video drivers plus the glx and dri files--for an iso size of 131Mb.
The widgets look different than they did with Ubuntu and SM2; maybe someone knows why and what it means.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 12:01 by Rockdove
OK w/ SM2
I did not find any rendering issue with the Jetstar link using SM2 in 4.3.1 on my old Dell 600MHz Latitude. Maybe I've gotten used to it? But, to my eye, it looked about the same as when using SM 1.1.11 w/ 4.1.1 on older 200 MHz Compaq Deskpro, and both looked somewhat better than FF 3.5.5 w/ Xubuntu 9.10 on a 1.6GHz Celeron box -- the latter having issues of font size crowding the date drop-downs.
My own experience with SM2 vs SM 1.18 has been no difference in rendering quality and maybe some pickup in rendering speed. I've tried Opera but never warmed to it. Will have to look inot Iron; never heard of it.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 12:26 by Ramachandran
I am using now Mywolfe007 and installed Google Chrome 4.02, In Google, the website Jetstar.com is working perfectly whereas in SM2, the website is not displaying properly ( Junk letters)!. Also please note that our local language newspaper site is rendering in Google Chrome is "very good" whereas in Firefox and Opera the rendering of same language site is not upto my satisfaction. In Google chrome is rending is fast!!! In Seamonkey (both version), it fails to display my local language website.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 13:08 by cthisbear
Using SeaMonkey 1.1.17 ... in XP
this site is perfect.
In the last puppies from 4.1????
Seamonkey performance is Miseable with
Very hard to see the login unless you know
Don't get me wrong, Seamonkey is my favourite.
Puppy 1.07 renders the site perfectly.
But been using Puppy 4.31 on a saved cd
lately, very nice work...but this page is crap
Tiger Airways eh!
If they gave you the same service as
you give us with Puppy they'd be dynamite.
Crap airline....cancerous management.
But I hope that you get lucky.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 13:21 by Bigdog
SM2 Renders Fine
Using Puppy 4.3.1 and SM2. The jetstar.com website
looks fine for me. The problem that you are having
did show up if I changed the Zoom setting in SM2.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 13:42 by Bigdog
I just tried an idea. I found that the font that is used by the GTK+ 2.0 Theme Chooser has a big effect on how SM2 looks. I use the Stardust theme and by changing the font style and size, big difference in how SM2 looks. System default font for everything.
Posted on 3 Dec 2009, 14:14 by Bigdog
SM2 look effect- Changes made in Preferences-Appearances-Fonts
in the SM2 settings will have a big effect on how websites look.
Tried several ones and used some that I had seen in Puppy Forum
Posted on 4 Dec 2009, 18:37 by disciple
seamonkey ram usage
Does anybody know how seamonkey's ram usage compares with firefox + thunderbird if you're using it for mail as well as internet? I'm guessing it's about half as much - is that right?
Posted on 5 Dec 2009, 8:36 by 01micko
Jestar site in SM2
I just took a look at that site running 430 with Seamonkey 2 I compiled (and released as a .pet) on October 27, the day SM2 final was released. I think you are aware of the forum thread. I can't find a problem with the rendering on that Jetstar site. I am able to fill out the forms with no problem.
I compiled fairly standard, usual Puppy options, no dbus etc. I did post my "./configure" options to this blog when you were first compiling apps for your T2 build. It seems to work fine in 43x, no major problems reported on the forum except Lobster gets a crash. In earlier Puppies there are some issues, but they are usually missing libs.
I do note however the drag and drop issue. It is a pain. I think that issue is in FF 3.5x too :-(
I read somewhere that there is early alpha source released for SM 2.1. I will investigate over the Christmas break to see if some issues are fixed.