On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:24:04 -0500 Clarence Verge wrote:
> I see you sent that with V1.61. It is my understanding that THAT bug was
> fixed in V1.61. It certainly was for me and a few others.
> Please report if you still see memory disappearing with this version and
> under what circumstances.
>
It does definitely STILL disappear under some circumstances. I
particularly found one thing I was doing on-line that brought it on and
- like a twit - I've been and gone and forgotten what it was. But I
remember roughly where it was, so I'll go and find it again, since
there's interest.
Interestingly, when 1.61 first appeared, I pretty quickly gave up on
it, because it crashed when on-line literally every 2-3 minutes. That's
expensive at British Telecom rates! By comparison, V1.6B1 would only
crash under severe provocation, maybe not for a week or more. Someone
(you? Glenn?) mentioned the virues of QEMM in the intervening period
and I acquired a copy and installed it. Then I had another go with
V1.61, it ran without any further adjustment and I'm still with it.
On one or two occasions, it seemed to be going through that old routine
where everything gets like stirring treacle (remember that?); I
clicked on the information bar and I saw, much to my surprise, the
ominous '35!!!' in red, which would not recover to the starting figure
of '127+' in green when I'd back-tracked. So there IS still a problem.
I'm unhappy to read in the list that at least someone thinks that "we
won't notice the memory problem" when we're all on Linux. Whatever sort
of approach to reliable engineering is that?? PLease note that I'm not
against Linux or its supporters (Steven et al). I've got a copy on CD
and I'll try it when I've got a day or two to fiddle. Until then, it
would be nice if someone could fix the DOS version of this browser thing!
Thanks for your interest,
Ron.
