David Murray wrote:
> gerbil wrote:
>
>> David Murray wrote:
>>
>>> Randall Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> > You don't have enough RAM for this application.
>>>
>>> You've got to be joking!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> 32 megs is more than adequate to run good graphics and Audio editors
>>> - applications which deal with massive file sizes. Why is it not
>>> sufficient to render web pages which are only a few K in size?
>>>
>>> TTFN
>>> D.
>>
>>
>>
>> 64 MB is now the new "standard." I have an old 32 MB machine back home
>> with Win98 and I find it hard to run a lot of my things on it without
>> it accessing the hard-drive like crazy (therefore slowing down the
>> computer significantly).
>
>
> Maybe 64Mb is the new "standard" for *new* machienes. However, there are
> many, many computers out there with "old" standard amounts of memory -
> and these machienes are not *that* old that they should be scrapped -
> especially seeing that they do everything perfectly well except to deal
> with Mozilla Memory Hog!
Mozilla does require a lot of memory. I spent the better part of a year
running mozilla browser and mail on a P100 with 16 MB RAM (as my only
browser and mail client) and it was pretty painful. If you are unhappy
with Mozilla's performance on your machine then don't use it. I
recommend that anyone with 16 MB RAM stick with Netscape4.x and many
with 32 MB RAM may want to stick with 4.x for a while longer as well.
>
>
>> But the bottom is this, the requirements page at Netscape.com does say
>> 64 MB of RAM, and there are memory related bugs with Mozilla,
>> therefore with Netscape 6 also, and there are people here working on
>> them. So in time they will be fixed and sometime after that, Netscape
>> should released an updated version of NS6 that should run more
>> comfortabily on systems with less than 64 MB of RAM.
>
>
> IF N4.x can run perfectly well on a 32MB machiene, and IF it can run on
> an 8mb machiene (albeit really slow) then N6 should be able to do the
> same - because it's doing the very same task!
Mozilla (and Netscape 6) are NOT "doing the very same task" Mozilla
does many things that 4.x did not do (look at HTML4, CSS 1 and 2, DOM,
etc.) and Navigator did many things that Mozilla does not yet do. It is
a falacious argument to suggest that the two browsers, with very
different functionality, seperated in time by severtal years and more
lines of code than can be counted, should have identical memory
requirements.
-Asa
>
> Regards to you all.
> D.
