Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

On 02/17/2009 10:06 AM, Benoit Renard wrote: > NoOp wrote: >> :-) didn't say that the 350Mhz runs fast... just said I have Ubuntu >> running on one. Xubuntu works better for that machine. > > I tried Xubuntu on the same machine. It was still a little slow. > >> However, a 500Mhz with 768MB is qui

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Hi, Benoit Renard a tapoté, le 17.02.2009 19:06: I tried Xubuntu on the same machine. It was still a little slow. Have you tried lxde on Ubuntu 8.10? Stéphane -- ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozil

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Robert Kaiser wrote: "bug free"? Win98? really? Well, if you count knowing the workarounds to most bugs as that, perhaps. Don't let yourself fool by popular knowledge. A Win98SE system that's setup well is reasonably bug free. "reasonably well performing"? Have you tried openSUSE, ubuntu or

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

NoOp wrote: :-) didn't say that the 350Mhz runs fast... just said I have Ubuntu running on one. Xubuntu works better for that machine. I tried Xubuntu on the same machine. It was still a little slow. However, a 500Mhz with 768MB is quite reasonable; yes a little slow (my main system was only

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

John Boyle wrote: Ray_Net wrote: For the WIN98 and the SM 2.xxx look at the Philip Chee suggestion: "Install KernelEx. This should allow you to install and run SeaMonkey 2.0a trunk builds on Windows98se." To ALL: How about using FREERAM OR SOME OTHER RAM MEMORY CONTROLLER FOR WIN 98, WHICH I

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Ray_Net wrote: > Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: >> Ray_Net wrote: >>> Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: System is Win98se on a 500Mhz Pentium 3 with ~760Mb of memory. I just last week updated to from SM 1.0.7 to 1.1.14. and newsreader performance has degraded abysmally! Watching the behaviou

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

On 02/16/2009 03:12 AM, Benoit Renard wrote: > NoOp wrote: >> Performance will be very reasonable; > > Not with Ubuntu and Gnome. Ran very slow on my 350 Mhz machine. That's > not too different from a 500 Mhz one. :-) didn't say that the 350Mhz runs fast... just said I have Ubuntu running on one

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: I'd like to be running something that's reasonably well performing and bug free. "bug free"? Win98? really? Well, if you count knowing the workarounds to most bugs as that, perhaps. "reasonably well performing"? Have you tried openSUSE, ubuntu or similar Linux dist

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

NoOp wrote: Performance will be very reasonable; Not with Ubuntu and Gnome. Ran very slow on my 350 Mhz machine. That's not too different from a 500 Mhz one. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozill

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Robert Kaiser wrote: Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Well soon the SMs I can use will be completely dead end anyways, since the 2.x versions won't work with WIN98. Well, Win98 has been abandoned by its creator for a long time now and doesn't get any further security fixes itself, so I see no reason

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: System is Win98se on a 500Mhz Pentium 3 with ~760Mb of memory. I just last week updated to from SM 1.0.7 to 1.1.14. and newsreader performance has degraded abysmally! Watching the behaviour with the system performance monitor, I

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

On 02/14/2009 08:04 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: > NoOp wrote: >> Should work just fine - I've run on much slower machines (I actually >> have a 350Mhz laptop running w/Ubuntu 8.04). But with a machine that old >> I'd recommend using 8.04 rather than 8.10. 8.10 is fine for most, but >> 8.04 is a

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Benoit Renard wrote: Plug-ins can cause memory leaks. So can extensions. Suggesting to reboot is not a good solution either way. well, so far you haven't come up with a suggestion. -- *IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email help Emails to me may become public Notice: This

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

It's also worth noting that there are barely any known security vulnerabilities in the first place. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Robert Kaiser wrote: I see no reason for providing security updates to random applications running there when the operating system itself doesn't get fixes to its known security flaws any more. It does get security fixes. Just not officially. ___ supp

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: So, trying to find a solution to the memory leak, you won't find it with SM 1.x There are always possible solutions that don't necessitate developer effort. Plug-ins can cause memory leaks. So can extensions. Suggesting to reboot is not a good solution ei

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Well soon the SMs I can use will be completely dead end anyways, since the 2.x versions won't work with WIN98. Well, Win98 has been abandoned by its creator for a long time now and doesn't get any further security fixes itself, so I see no reason for providing securi

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

NoOp wrote: On 02/14/2009 01:16 AM, Stéphane Grégoire wrote: Hi, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj a tapoté, le 14.02.2009 02:43: Thank you very much for the progressive 'tongue in cheek' advice. Well soon the SMs I can use will be completely dead end anyways, since the 2.x versions won't work with WIN98. May

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

On 02/14/2009 01:16 AM, Stéphane Grégoire wrote: > Hi, > Rostyslaw Lewyckyj a tapoté, le 14.02.2009 02:43: >> Thank you very much for the progressive 'tongue in cheek' advice. >> Well soon the SMs I can use will be completely dead end anyways, >> since the 2.x versions won't work with WIN98. > > M

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:24:09 -0500, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: >> 5. Smoke testing 2.0a3, 2.0b1 and 2.0RC1 will need smoketesting before >> released for download, and on all three (win/nix/mac) platforms. Even if >> you can't code, even if you can't triage, surely you can spare a couple >> of hours

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Benoit Renard wrote: Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: I doubt that it will be fixed, as the devs are concentrating their efforts on SM2, and couldn't careless about the 1.1 series. So, the only option I can say is to reboot every now and then. How about making a post that helps? Especial

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: I doubt that it will be fixed, as the devs are concentrating their efforts on SM2, and couldn't careless about the 1.1 series. So, the only option I can say is to reboot every now and then. How about making a post that helps? Especially the first sentence

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Philip Chee wrote: On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:05:57 -0800, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: I doubt that it will be fixed, as the devs are concentrating their efforts on SM2, and couldn't careless about the 1.1 series. So, the only option I can say is to reboot every now and then. Let's cl

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Hi, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj a tapoté, le 14.02.2009 02:43: Thank you very much for the progressive 'tongue in cheek' advice. Well soon the SMs I can use will be completely dead end anyways, since the 2.x versions won't work with WIN98. May you can try a Linux Live CD, you have a lot of memory it may

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:05:57 -0800, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: > I doubt that it will be fixed, as the devs are > concentrating their efforts on SM2, and couldn't > careless about the 1.1 series. So, the only option I > can say is to reboot every now and then. Let's clarify this: 1

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Ray_Net wrote: Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: System is Win98se on a 500Mhz Pentium 3 with ~760Mb of memory. I just last week updated to from SM 1.0.7 to 1.1.14. and newsreader performance has degraded abysmally! Watching the behaviour with the system performance monitor, I notice that system memory

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: System is Win98se on a 500Mhz Pentium 3 with ~760Mb of memory. I just last week updated to from SM 1.0.7 to 1.1.14. and newsreader performance has degraded abysmally! Watching the behaviour with the system performance monitor, I notice that system memory almost invariabl

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: System is Win98se on a 500Mhz Pentium 3 with ~760Mb of memory. I just last week updated to from SM 1.0.7 to 1.1.14. and newsreader performance has degraded abysmally! Watching the behaviour with the system performance monitor, I not

Re: SM 1.1.14 and memory usage/management

Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: System is Win98se on a 500Mhz Pentium 3 with ~760Mb of memory. I just last week updated to from SM 1.0.7 to 1.1.14. and newsreader performance has degraded abysmally! Watching the behaviour with the system performance monitor, I notice that system memory almost invariabl