On Sat, Jul 27, 2013, John Francis wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote: >> >> You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or >> figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is >> something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a >> hundred times slower otherwise. (I don't care how old your computer is, >> that's essentially irrelevant.) > > Unless, of course, you run out of physical memory, and start thrashing. > Needing more memory than the machine currently has available can easily > cause a particular program to run a hundred times slower. > > The older a machine is, the less memory is likely to have been configured > on it (memory gets significantly cheaper every year).
All true, and I wrote something about that but decided to delete it. >From my POV, that's still "something wrong", even if semi-expected under certain circumstances. Thing is, I loaded up five tabs in Firefox (each a different site), and it's using <250MB. I can't imagine someone seriously into digital photography using a machine so underpowered that thrashing would show up with that usage. (Of course, I'm using Linux, Firefox could be more of a memory hog under Windows.) -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
