Asa Dotzler wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Let's put it this way...
How much memory does IE 5.5 need altogether (including those bits that
are a part of windows) to render a web page?
Why can't Mozilla do the same?
The functionality in comparison to 4.x IS the same, in that it's task is
to render web pages and to read/write/send emails & News. This is how
non-programmers non-server admin people see it.
Don't get me wrong - I look forward to the success of Mozilla. I believe
that it's good to keep the end goal (premier high quality product in
mind when creating solutions to technical problems.
Regards to you all,
D.
