I agree, this is a very good browser and so far, when using FireFox 3 it froze up on me when using java and was a mess and it did it all the time, I uninstalled it today and shall use flock as my default browser now, I am so sick of firefox bragging about being the best when it is not. Flock rocks and I like it, even if you do use the part time working freezing, crashing FireFox engine LOL...( I just had to say it... )

LakotaGhost (Ivan)
South Dakota

I can only concur with previous comments about the much-hyped Firefox version 3: Its total rubbish and continually crashes whenever I try to use my Facebook features. This latest version of Flock is vastly superior to Firefox, and will take a lot of persuading for me to ever download Firefox onto my computer again.

I don't know if I would say "Flock is better than Firefox" mainly because Flock is built on Firefox and to be honest, if it wasn't would there be as many people using Flock? Would Flock even exist?

I love Firefox but I also love Flock. In my opinion Flock is excellent but at the end of the day is it anything more than a Firefox with more of a social aspect?

I came to the Flock forums as I have been wanting to give it a go as I have heard a lot of good things about it. A recent article in my local paper covering the latest browser offerings (FF3, IE7, Opera 9.5, and Flock) concluded Flock was the best choice since it is based on the FF code, but smoother in working with blogs, picture sites, etc. Nexus asks the question I have been pondering myself - mainly since I am not a online social person.

I surf the web and have multiple e-mail accounts. I like how Flock allowed me to setup my Google and Yahoo accounts. Now that I have family in other states, I have been wanting to do more with online photo sites so I can share pictures with them. Blogging is another thing I wanted to get involved with. As you can see by my descriptions, I am very new to this so I appreciate your patience.

In the end, I ask myself if there is a need to use Flock instead of Firefox. I have already researched the extensions I use and only one or two are not Flock compatible. People fear change and we stick to what we are used to (one reason IE is so popular IMHO). From my perspective, Flock makes interfacing with certain social sites easier. Yes, you could do all this with other browsers, but not to the integrated level of Flock (FF has extensions but not as smooth). This is my two cents for what it is worth. ;-)

I am curious being a "newbie" as to what Flock offers other than social site integration. How does it work as just a browser (e.g. are there slowdowns due to the social integration overhead)? I am giving it a whirl and am pleased thus far. It appears to have picked up all the plugins I have installed (flash, javascript, adobe, etc.) and I will install some extensions today. In the end, I find myself wondering if I fit into the "social" category this browser is geared towards.

Thank you for your time and understanding. Kudos to the Flock development team as they have done a fantastic job!! I have been using Mozilla based browsers for a number of years (Mozilla Suite, Netscape, SeaMonkey, FF) and appreciate the hard work going into keeping them as viable alternatives.

jtek, you bring up some very good points. I agree if you want a browser with smooth social networking integration then Flock is what you are looking for.

------------------------------------------

(e.g. are there slowdowns due to the social integration overhead)?

In my experience with both Firefox and Flock, I haven't noticed any performance decreases due to the social integration. This was even before I applied various tweaks to make Flock run even faster (Tweaks can be found here)

------------------------------------------

In the end, I find myself wondering if I fit into the "social" category this browser is geared towards.

In my opinion (may of come across wrong in my last post) Flock can be used by anyone, whether they are people who blog everyday or even make a living from blogging or just someone such as yourself who just want to share photos with your family. Flock just helps make sharing them photos easier, making it faster to get your photos online and viewable.

For my closing statement I would say Flock can be used by anyone whether they are a heavy or light user of social networks. Flock just makes it easier to share information or maintain multiple social networking sites - without sacrificing performance.

The web community consolidation is impressive with flock's browser.. You can tell Aol and Netscape really put their brains together on this one!

Scott Knauer
Shop Manager
Peanuts CB Shop

http://www.peanutscbshop.com

im using 2.0b2 and it hogs more memory but i think it'll be resolved soon. =)

Cuz i hv a dozen addons to play with.. haha
And it doesn;t crash which is good

When reading in your post there that you had add ons, that might explain why it's hogging your memory, as I'm now running the 2.0b2 and it only uses about 60MB of memory, and also appears to go down to 58MB when going to a different page. Still happy with it though, and I think it's a bit faster at rendering as well, but can't be sure about this until tomorrow when I get my full speed back.

Yes, I definitely think the new 2.0b2 version is quicker than the 1.2 version I was using at rendering the pages. Well, keep it up guys. This browser is just getting better and better. As long as it stays stable though.

I wouldn't say the memory problems will be resolved. There can be a tradeoff between storing things in memory and computing things with the CPU. Mozilla and Flock have taken the approach of storing more in memory (such as recently visited pages and recently closed tabs) in order to display them quicker if you want to browse back to a previous page or reopen a closed tab.

If you don't like Firefox's memory usage, you won't like the new Internet Explorer 8 beta: some research shows that in some situations the IE 8 beta can use twice the memory(380MB vs 159MB) that Firefox does. However, the IE 8 beta used less CPU than Firefox.

It's a tradeoff.

Whao, I have to admit, I've never seen Firefox use anywhere near 159MB of memory. The most I've seen is about 90MB, and that's it. Unless you are talking about using quite a few tabs, but otherwise, I've not seen this when using Firefox.

159MB of memory usage is definitely possible. I have a five-year old P4 2.66 gHz PC running WinXP SP3, with 1 GB memory. With the 11 tabs open listed at the bottom of the article, I see Firefox 3 taking 173 MB.

I have AVG Search Safe, FirefoxView, Forecastfox, Remember The Milk for Gmail, and the Veoh Browser Plug-in add-ons activated, and the Delicious toolbar installed but not activated (I think it's not compatible with Firefox 3).

Flock is really better than firefox.
I agreed with that point.
-Especially the Ram that it eats. Flock takes around 40-50k RAM, and Firefox takes around 70k.

-It really matters for me because I have a new Vista laptop and an old desktop PC which naturally is made for windows 2000, i installed XP there ;)
Moreover all browsers that i tried(Firefox, Opera, Chrome) were crashing from time to time. Flock hasn't crashed for me yet.

-The design is much better than firefox.

-The additional social "plugins".

And much much more...I think in the Buzzblogger it is mentioned.

So flock: GROW!

My flocks never crashed it dose use 86.6k ? Which is twice yours?Mine varies but in the 80s.k with its down to just now.

Flock is the best browser. Chrome tags would be nice---?Then it couldent crash!

But not the FF3.1 catastrophic bar!!That will be bad.Flocks bar is FAR better now as it is.

"But not the FF3.1 catastrophic bar!!That will be bad.Flocks bar is FAR better now as it is."

-Totally agreed on that. Bar is simple to use and it's on the same level with the access of social stuff.
----------------------------------------------
VerteX | Go Pro. Only If You Want The Best.

The new FF3.0.3 freezes my system,Chrome & Flock havent so far

Flock browser did close when a samsung video ad opened. I clicked a link to get more information about cameras for U-tube.But thats not bad as flock has "restore session"
Ffox opens more quickly than flock but i dont mind,if i did id open chrome

Flock might start freezing when we get v2? Worse Flock has lots of money to develop which may mean they "have" to change flock ?

Oh!I dident mean anything bad.
Its a pity the good "yahoo" address bar which can be cleaned up has been changed for the "google"catastrophe bar which cant.

I upgraded a laptop to Flock v2 beta today.It is a bit faster but the bar is jamed with junk such as"page error" (when the connection was down) then "herbs" "goat farm" & other now unwanted searches & wrong addresses spelling or net/com errors

As i see it,to tidy up Flock v2 i must deleat v2 load v1 tidy up then re-install v2? Or just stay with the last flock??

If you still have Flock v2 installed on a machine, you can get rid of some of the junk you see by using the arrow keys to select the junk and pressing delete to remove it from future searches. It doesn't help you necessarily the first time around, but similar searches using the address bar should no longer show the pages you deleted.

Best of luck.