On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:14:51 -0800, Clarence Verge wrote:
> Hello Michael;
> I was not using virtual screens so that extra delay was not in the result.
> My original report commented:
> Just doing a page down takes the same time in Arachne as the initial load
> - say 5.5 seconds - while Netscape does it in about a third of a second.
> That's 18 times faster !
> So, let us ignore the "F9" function and look at the above case of page down.
> Don't waste all that time correcting broken virtual screens. To speed up
> the local interface, don't do ANY more than necessary on a page down/up.
> You are saying, in effect, that you don't trust the results of rendering so
> you are doing it again. Once is enough. Even on refresh.
I _think_ I see what's happening here.
With virtual screens "off"... only the currently visible portion of the
page has been "rendered".
Doing a page-down then causes the next visible portion of the screen to
getr rendered. Page-up "re-renders" the first portion and a second
page-down re-renders the second portion.
IMHO,
With no virtual screen to store the entire page in.
I know of no other way that it _can_ be done.
> If the screen becomes corrupt, let the user make the decision to reload.
> And please, no altF9 unless you switch the functions.
> i.e. altF9 = current F9 function, New F9 function is FAST refresh.
> But you don't really need both. Just simplify the current function.
> Only my opinion of course.<G>
> - Clarence Verge
> --
> - Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
> --
--
Glenn McCorkle [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Jackson, Ohio, USA
DOS prog. for QV cameras http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/qvplay.html
Other stuff http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
Arachne, The Web Browser for DOS
Open the 'DOOR' to the WWW. Keep the 'windows' closed.
http://arachne.browser.org/ http://arachne.cz/
