On 02/03/2010 04:21 PM, Phillip Jones wrote: > Phillip Jones wrote: >> BJ wrote: >>> Leonidas Jones wrote: >>>> Phillip Jones wrote: >>>>> Leonidas Jones wrote: >>>>>> Phillip Jones wrote: >>>>>>> Robert Kaiser wrote: >>>>>>>> Phillip Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> Robert Kaiser wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Phillip Jones schrieb: >>>> /snip/ >>>>>> Phillip, I would be careful about making statements that you cannot >>>>>> backup, it will damage your credibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> 10 times faster? Come on now! I tried disabling tabs, and opening >>>>>> windows instead, with no gain in speed at all. The same links open in >>>>>> new tabs just as fast as new windows. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not to mention, I often have 10-20 tabs open at a time. Trying to keep >>>>>> track of that many windows is a nightmare. >>>>>> >>>>>> I realize this might not be your work model. If you only have a couple >>>>>> or three open at a time, it probably works, and if it works for you, >>>>>> that's great. But 10 times faster? Please provide some data to back >>>>>> that up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lee >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> YMMV. >>>>> >>>>> But for me its like the difference between night and day. And, it was >>>>> related to having Multiple windows open for going each link in a page >>>>> rather than reusing the same window. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have the luxury of one of the newfangled 8 GB , quadcore >>>>> machines. I'm still using just a lowly 1.67GB PowerPC Machine. Plus I >>>>> have a Slow DSL Line (1 mb synchronous). so setting to open in same >>>>> window sped up for me as I said. >>>>> >>>>> As you know, I don't do tabs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, then how the heck do you know its 10 times faster??? >>>> >>>> I will detail the tests I ran. >>>> >>>> I do have a fast iMac, with a fast cable connection. >>>> >>>> I cleared the cache, and opened my my.myway start page. I opened 20 >>>> links in tabs, 10 were my.myway pages, and ten were external links. >>>> >>>> I then cleared the cache, and repeated with opening new windows. >>>> >>>> There was virtually no difference. The my.myway pages show the load >>>> time, and most gave the tabs a slight edge, but from my standpoint, I >>>> didn't actually notice a difference. All the pages opened quickly, >>>> whether tabs or windows. >>>> >>>> Knowing that you have an older Mac, I reran the same test on my PowerMac >>>> G4, running Tiger. Its a 450 mhz with 640 MB of ram, far slower than >>>> what you are running. >>>> >>>> Same results, if anything, the tabs were faster, though it was not >>>> noticeable as a user, within less then a second. >>>> >>>> Interesting to note the old PowerMac pulled the pages just as fast as >>>> the iMac Intel. >>>> >>>> iMac Intel, OS X 10.6.2 >>>> 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo >>>> 4 GB RAM >>>> >>>> PowerMac PPC G4 >>>> 450 MHz >>>> 640 MB RAM >>>> >>>> Same internet connection, same SM 2.0.2, same speed. I've always said >>>> that older machines are far from dead as far as the internet is concerned. >>>> >>>> Phillip, I respect what you are trying to do here. I agree with a lot of >>>> it, some of it I disagree completely, but I respect it none the less. >>>> >>>> But, when you say things like "10 times faster" with absolutely nothing >>>> to back it up, and indeed, when it is just clearly so wrong, it damages >>>> your credibility, and people are much less likely to take you seriously. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I think Phillip tends to exaggerate sometimes, so I don't take something >>> like "10 times faster" literally, but rather I think it means just >>> "faster" . . . how much actually is debatable, but your tests seem to be >>> more precise. Nevertheless, I do take him seriously, just with a grain >>> of salt. >>> >>> On the topic of "faster", I think you put it well when you said "from my >>> standpoint, I didn't actually notice a difference". Most discussions on >>> browser speeds boil down to maybe a few seconds "faster", which a user >>> isn't really going to notice as significant. >>> >>> There are, however, times when the speed IS noticeable, and in that >>> regard Phillip's testimony sometimes leaves me wondering . . . "was it >>> really all that much more fast, or is this '10 times' thing just a >>> matter of a few puny seconds?" I don't necessarily think it is "wrong" >>> for Phillip to do that, so I might disagree with you there, but I do >>> agree that it stretches the credibility of the statement if you take it >>> literally. >>> >>> BJ >> I based on my opinion *my systems* . I have two G-4's, a 500 Mb and. and >> 1.67GB PowerBook 17" slow compared to the Intel machines of today. plus >> they just have one processor with one core, and cache speed is 100mb on >> the G4-500, one 167 Mb on the 1.67GB. the G4-500 had 1.5 GB memory. >> The 1.67Gb has 2 Gb. >> >> Now if I had one of them new 8 core 4 GB machines, may be difference >> would barely be noticeable. But on my machines the improvement when I >> finally figured out how to reuse the same window was dramatic, for me 10 >> times was the difference. >> >> Now if I could stop the SeaMonkey Crashes I'd be happy: >> >> Since 10/29/2009 I've had ten Crashes. And I've actually had two or >> three others That I cleared out before this. >> >> In the entire history of SM 1.x including crashes caused by the full >> circle crash reporter I had maybe 6 (in about 5-6 years). And I used >> almost as many as many extensions and themes as I use now. Most are >> triggered during reading email/news. > Incidentally they have the same Reason for crash: > > EXC_BAD_ACCESS / KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE >
It's probably crashing due to lack of trimming in your posts... Note: this post purposely left off trimming & no electrons were killed in the process. However this might be of use: http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html <quote> Trim your follow-ups. Do not quote the entire content of the message to which you are replying. Include only as much as is necessary for context. Remember that if someone wants to read the original message, they can; it is easily accessible. A good rule of thumb is, don't include more quoted text than new text. There is always a need for some trimming - either a salutation, a signature, some blank lines or whatever. If you are doing no trimming whatsoever of the quoted text, then you aren't trimming enough. </quote> _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
