Why is this?

Although I've tried firefox many times over its different versions, I've never liked it because it seems clunky to operate compared to k-meleon and internet explore shell browsers.

I've given FF another good run through its paces again recently and I still can't get on with it because of this.

I@ve tried it on two different pcs and 3 different O/S's
98se 2000 & Xp
P3 1ghz 512mbram
P4 2ghz 768mbram

Even the skins are a bit strange - phoenity on firefox just isn't as nice to look at as phoenity on k-meleon

Arrow - you've said it for me!

I've used it on all those OSs (and on various Linux setups), and on much older pcs (this one's an 8 yr old laptop, 64mb, 350mhz, running W2k and 98se). On older equipment the difference is even more marked - KM on this machine opens in about 5secs on a good day, whereas FF never manages less than 15secs! Also, there are still one or two niggling little bugs in FF that have never been fixed, but you'd have to be a 'keyboard only' freak to notice them.

I'm no developer, but I believe it's do with KM - mainly - using native windows system files, and using macros instead of extensions, as in FF. It's just mean, sleek and unpretentious, and I've used it since version 0.8 almost exclusively. This latest build is the meanest, fastest, safest browser out, and I wouldn't use any other unless I had to.

Also, this forum is one of the friendliest in cyberspace, as I'm sure everyone would agree!

Definitely !

Yes I suppose you are right about the native windows integration
tho' like you i don't understand the technicalities.
When you click on the K-M interface the response is lightning fast
whereas the firefox gui responds like a girl with her mind on things.

Arrow - yes, FF is well-known and very versatile, but it just don't cut it with older machines. If KM goes on developing in this way, and it gets the right publicity, it could easily make a dent in FF's downloads (which is a sore thing...). I recommend it to anyone who'll listen, esp those with older pcs (I remember getting an earlier version working passably well on a W95/16mb/90mhz machine. I kid you not! :-o )
KM just has a 'homelier' feel to it, and the whole approach of the developers and testers is totally different to FF. Also, I believe KM scores consistently very high on security tests, and that's without 5 extensions loading every time . It's the unsung star of cyberspace, in my opinion, and a credit to all who work on it.

I agree. I've tried FF but found it chunky and slow despite tweaking and doing away with extensions. K-meleon just flies in comparison. The only site I have problems with is www.live.local.com but as that's Microsoft's territory it's to be expected I suppose!