Ant wrote:
On 8/19/2020 4:20 AM, Edward wrote:
I looked at both Firefox and SeaMonkey. The entry for
browser.cache.memory.capacity is showing '-1' in Firefox. However, in
SeaMonkey, the same entry shows 'default', 'integer' and '20'.
The information on
On 8/19/2020 4:20 AM, Edward wrote:
David H. Durgee wrote:
How fast is your internet connection? If it is high speed you might
find things work faster if you disable the disk cache completely and
have only a memory cache. Disk access is much slower than memory
access, so swapping and cache
Edward wrote:
Edward wrote:
Edward wrote:
In my case, I have 3.6Gb of memory. Recently installed uBlock Origin,
but am going to remove it to see if it makes a difference here.
I removed the uBlock Origin legacy add-on obtained from github via a
link in this newsgroup. Noticed afterwards
Edward wrote:
Edward wrote:
In my case, I have 3.6Gb of memory. Recently installed uBlock Origin,
but am going to remove it to see if it makes a difference here.
I removed the uBlock Origin legacy add-on obtained from github via a
link in this newsgroup. Noticed afterwards that even after
Edward wrote:
In my case, I have 3.6Gb of memory. Recently installed uBlock Origin,
but am going to remove it to see if it makes a difference here.
I removed the uBlock Origin legacy add-on obtained from github via a
link in this newsgroup. Noticed afterwards that even after removal, some
David H. Durgee wrote:
How fast is your internet connection? If it is high speed you might
find things work faster if you disable the disk cache completely and
have only a memory cache. Disk access is much slower than memory
access, so swapping and cache retrieval are the major causes of slow
On 8/18/2020 2:18 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
Ant wrote:
On 8/18/2020 11:24 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
...
UO Legacy (v1.16.4.24) here too. Yeah. :(
As noted, see what happens when you turn off uBlock, at least
temporarily.
If disabling uBlock doesn't change anything, I'm inclined to believe
that
On 8/18/2020 1:50 PM, David H. Durgee wrote:
...
I have 805 GB free out of 933 GB in my 2 TB SATA 7200 RPM HDD's C:
drive. I do clear out its mess at least once a month. :)
How fast is your internet connection? If it is high speed you might
find things work faster if you disable the disk
Ant wrote:
On 8/18/2020 11:24 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
...
UO Legacy here too. Yeah. :(
As noted, see what happens when you turn off uBlock, at least
temporarily.
If disabling uBlock doesn't change anything, I'm inclined to believe
that you're seeing something that's system related, rather
Ant wrote:
> On 8/18/2020 11:24 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
> ...
>>> UO Legacy here too. Yeah. :(
>>
>> As noted, see what happens when you turn off uBlock, at least
>> temporarily.
>>
>> If disabling uBlock doesn't change anything, I'm inclined to believe
>> that you're seeing something that's system
On 8/18/2020 11:24 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
...
UO Legacy here too. Yeah. :(
As noted, see what happens when you turn off uBlock, at least temporarily.
If disabling uBlock doesn't change anything, I'm inclined to believe
that you're seeing something that's system related, rather than
Seamonkey
On 8/18/2020 11:58 AM, EE wrote:
...
When I was using Windows, I found that everything slowed down if the
swap file got fragmented. I was able to move it to the beginning of
another partition on the hard drive so that it would not be fragmented,
and windows was more efficient after that.
I
Edward wrote:
David H. Durgee wrote:
Sounds like you are swapping a lot. How much memory do you have? For
example my current SM 2.53.5 is using 2.2G of memory out of 32G on my
linux mint 18.3 x64 system.
If you are swapping hard the only solution is more memory or closing out
other programs
Ant wrote:
On 8/18/2020 10:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
How much RAM do you have?
6 GB of RAM.
Also, if you look at the Task Manager, what's the memory demand coming
from Seamonkey?
Like 1 GB with seamonkey.exe.
To me, that combination should be OK, but has been noted elsewhere, it
does
On 8/18/2020 10:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
Ant wrote:
Mine does in my decade old, 64-bit W7 HPE SP1 PC. My quad core CPU's
single CPU goes bonker to its max. SM just freezes and doesn't respond
for a minute or so. Doing anything, like quitting SM, is delayed big
time. I noticed this for weeks
NFN Smith wrote:
I will note that I'm a long-time user of NoScript and uBlock Origin (and
Adblock Plus before that), and it seems that uBlock may be the culprit
for me, especially since I have a lot of user-crafted rules (I tend to
block annoying graphics that I don't want to see, even if
On 8/18/2020 10:34 AM, David H. Durgee wrote:
Ant wrote:
Hello.
Mine does in my decade old, 64-bit W7 HPE SP1 PC. My quad core CPU's
single CPU goes bonker to its max. SM just freezes and doesn't respond
for a minute or so. Doing anything, like quitting SM, is delayed big
time. I noticed this
Ant wrote:
Mine does in my decade old, 64-bit W7 HPE SP1 PC. My quad core CPU's
single CPU goes bonker to its max. SM just freezes and doesn't respond
for a minute or so. Doing anything, like quitting SM, is delayed big
time. I noticed this for weeks too. Did Google change something recently
David H. Durgee wrote:
Sounds like you are swapping a lot. How much memory do you have? For
example my current SM 2.53.5 is using 2.2G of memory out of 32G on my
linux mint 18.3 x64 system.
If you are swapping hard the only solution is more memory or closing out
other programs to free up
Ant wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Mine does in my decade old, 64-bit W7 HPE SP1 PC. My quad core CPU's
> single CPU goes bonker to its max. SM just freezes and doesn't respond
> for a minute or so. Doing anything, like quitting SM, is delayed big
> time. I noticed this for weeks too. Did Google change
Hello.
Mine does in my decade old, 64-bit W7 HPE SP1 PC. My quad core CPU's
single CPU goes bonker to its max. SM just freezes and doesn't respond
for a minute or so. Doing anything, like quitting SM, is delayed big
time. I noticed this for weeks too. Did Google change something recently
21 matches
Mail list logo
