Glenn McCorkle wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:14:51 -0800, Clarence Verge wrote:
>
> > I was not using virtual screens so that extra delay was not in the result.
>
> > 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 !
>
> > 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.
>
> 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
> get 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.
Interesting observation and conclusion Glenn;
So, you are saying that Netscape renders the whole DOCUMENT faster than
Arachne does one (NON-virtual) screen ? It's possible I suppose.
That also presupposes that Arachne ignores stuff that's off screen (down
the page). It certainly doesn't look that way mostimes. :-((
I just checked Arachne on the P90 with virtual screens enabled. It definitely
is faster paging up and down that way. It seems to be about twice as fast as
non-virtual screens using home.arachne.cz as the page. This is ignoring the
extra time it takes to generate that virtual screen in the first place.
But with virtual screens Arachne 1.6b1 on my P90 is still 3 times slower than
Netscape 2.02 on my 33Mhz '486. (Page up/down times only being considered)
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
--
