In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Hodge
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>JTK wrote:
>
>> I started, just now, at 20,180 K. My start page was about:.
>
>You've got 256M, what's an extra 10M?
Ummm... that'd be a ~5MB difference. About 2% of the memory on my system. To
display nothing, a big white rectangle. And that's on my 256 MB system.
Which is more memory than average last I checked.
Oh I know, by the time Mozilla ships, we'll all have terabytes of holographic
error-correcting RAM in our watches, but I just can't help but think it's
insane to need that much RAM to do *NOTHING*. But of course what do I know.
> Come to think of it if you're so
>happy with IE and Outlook why are you here?
>
Did I state somewhere that I was "so happy with" IE or Outlook? No. I want
better. I naively believed, long long ago, that Mozilla might be it, or at
least might play a part in "it". Wow, learned my lesson.
So why are you here? And in particular why bother to respond to me, since you
clearly don't believe I have a point? I mean, hell, it's just "an extra
10M", right? What's a few tens of meg here or there?
>I'm using Mozilla 0.8.1 here with a K6-2 500 and 128M and I have no
>problems with resource usage or speed (except loading speed which is slow).
>
>Steve
>
Well, I admire your extreme patience and ability to tolerate sub-par software
Steve. Admittedly, I lack such qualities.
Not sure I miss them.
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
